The birth rate has decreased, we hear all the time, and I always think about how we grew up – for girls “don’t get pregnant” and a lot of help to protect themselves.
For boys “don’t get your partner pregnant”, and a lot of help to protect themselves.
Early pregnancies were bad, you were a bad person if you had children early.
Then you were supposed to build a career before having children, and women were not supposed to stay at home with children.
It was preferable to have a house before having children as well, and you get less and less for your salary.
The solution to the demographic problem became immigration, and we had a huge peak in 2015, but we are still talking about the same problem since too few entered the workforce – so that didn’t work either.
Then, when you finally have children, it is extremely expensive with sports and everything children should have – not many have five children because they can’t afford it, and as a working family, you don’t get much additional support beyond child benefits.
Then came the “fulfill yourself and get divorced” wave – it was trendy to get divorced, and you were supposed to save in a bank account so you could get divorced.
Society has not made it particularly attractive for many to become parents, and apparently we need 3 children per family to prevent the population from decreasing.
And then divorce has been encouraged.
Instead of putting families with children on a pedestal, they are considered somewhat annoying in public spaces.
I have a couple of reactionary suggestions here –
-give working families a 25% tax reduction (on income tax) per child until they are 15 years old, I believe we would have families with four children faster than you can say pregnancy.
-give everyone who has a child 150,000 SEK in a birth gift.
-allow working parents, one parent at a time, to reduce to half-time with maintained salary until the children are 12 years old.
-give everyone who wants to engage in sports clubs as coaches the right to reduce their working hours to 75% with maintained salary.
-make preschool and school attractive and have different levels.
Expensive, you say, but having 900,000 unemployed is quite expensive too, they do not support themselves and thus cost money, and now that became somewhat of a consequence of trying to solve the problem with skewed demographics, right?
Or to speak plainly – the cost of crime against welfare systems and criminality, 150 billion SEK was apparently “significantly underestimated” according to some CEO recently.
Or the enormous waste of money on things that are fun – Northvolt’s bankruptcy cost us 80 billion SEK.
I find it very difficult to understand why Sweden constantly chooses poor alternatives to try to solve its problems.
Families with children are the future – they are the ones who build a country, period.
It should be attractive to be a parent, and there are plenty of studies showing which ages are biologically best, and it’s not when you’re over 40 and finally can afford the townhouse.
What do people argue about the most in a relationship that is okay – probably money?
Don't forget to donate, Ukraine's cause is ours! Support Ukraine!
NOTE: Those of you who do NOT want to allow automatic translation of your comments, please go to your profile page and set it.
Hover over your name at the top right, select edit profile, and you will then find the setting under the language settings heading.
A bit anecdotal, but in the neighboring house, which is a rental property, there are a couple of young, as I understand it, low-educated women living alone who have gotten themselves a dog. They are out with their dogs half the day. They are being taught to be house-trained. The dog craze is total here in Stockholm. If this had been 50 years ago, they would have had children with some guy.
There is a lot to say about the low birth rate. It is a multifactorial problem. It is tough to have children today. Neither children nor parents seem to be doing particularly well. The role of a parent is difficult. Progressive ideas must coexist with older attitudes. Uncertainty comes like clockwork.
The surveys conducted point, among other things, to these factors as to why people choose not to have children (or have few children).
Providing families with a lot of money can of course help, but there is not much indicating that it is the main reason for the decrease in childbirth. Additionally, there is a risk that children are born for economic reasons, and the question is what kind of upbringing children would have if that is the main reason they came into the world.
This is what some researcher found on Google:
“Most of them stated that they did not wish to have children or become parents. The second largest group responded that they did not want to have children for health reasons, for example, because they had a disease they did not want to pass on. The third group valued their freedom. The fourth group cited economic reasons.”
It is a difficult problem to solve, if it even needs to be solved?
I believe in adapting to an economy that does not require constant growth and more inhabitants.
First some comments
The cost of crime against the welfare systems is estimated to amount to 150 billion. The cost to society is estimated to be around 15-20 billion.
If I understand you correctly, you are assuming that if we have more children, we can stop immigration and thus also avoid crime?
You also assume that we have 900,000 unemployed people and you think that if we stop immigration and replace it with “our own” children, we will also get rid of them?
We are estimated to have around 485,000 unemployed people and in 2010, 15 years ago, we had 420,000 unemployed people.
The cost of unemployment benefits and labor market measures is estimated to be around 16 billion for this year.
In addition to the child allowance you mention, we also have parental leave, among other things.
The state budgets around 100 billion for families with children today.
Of that, around 33 billion is child allowance.
Then we have costs for parental leave of around 8 billion.
So in total, families with children cost around 108 billion.
Some calculations
Let’s calculate what your proposals would cost.
If the purpose now is for us to have more children, we must assume that with your solution, we will simply give birth to about twice as many children as today after a while.
There are about 100,000 births per year now, so we calculate with 200,000.
The average salary in Sweden is around 38,000.
The tax rate is around 32%.
Today we have around 1.5 children per family (that has children), so we assume that we will reach 3 when we pick up the pace, so to speak.
The childbirth gift would then cost 30 billion per year.
Income tax reduction per child up to 15 years.
Before reduction:
38,000 × 12 months × 0.32 ≈ 145,920 SEK/year
25% tax reduction would then cost 25% * 145,920 = 36,480 SEK/year per child
200,000 births/year × 15 years = 3 million children.
Exactly how the distribution looks (some have 1 child, some 5) is difficult, but if we halve it, we end up at around 1.5 million families, perhaps a conservative estimate, but let’s be kind.
If we calculate based on an average of 2 children per family (even though the goal is 3, so we are a bit kind here too).
The cost would then be 1.5 million × 2 adults × 2 children × 36,480 = 219 billion SEK/year
Half-time with full salary until the child is 12 years old
If we calculate that one of the parents goes part-time
50% of the salary = 38,000 × 0.5 = 19,000 SEK/month
19,000 × 12 months × 12 years = 2.736 million
200,000 children × 2.736 million SEK = 547 billion SEK/year
Of course, there are many assumptions here, but as an average calculation, it is probably not far off. So we end up with a total annual cost of 796 billion.
Our state budget is around ~1300 billion!
What could the financing of this cost?
One example could be that those who do not have children pay more in taxes to cover those who do have children. It is quite easy to calculate and is also easy to relate to because you can immediately see how it affects your own economy.
We have around 5.2 million employed
Since the benefits are quite widespread, a large part of the population will actually have some of the benefits. So out of those 5.2 million, maybe around 3 million do not have any entitlement to benefits.
796 billion / 3 million = 265,300/year -> 22,100/month.
So we would need to increase the tax by 22,100/month if we only finance it that way.
NOTE! Since we will no longer have organized crime and no unemployment, we would of course have reduced those 796 billion by around 30 billion. The monthly tax increase would then be closer to 21,000.
Conclusion
Expensive, you said we would say and yes, that is true at least for me.
Your proposals entail such enormous advantages for those who have children (and burden those who do not have children even worse) that everyone would make sure to have children all the time.
The economy would crash within a couple of years when there are no longer enough people left to finance the enormous costs.
Not to mention the crisis it would lead to when all maternity wards must be expanded and we have a shortage of midwives.
Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposal, it is probably correct.
It will be expensive in any case.
Thank you!
There is probably a margin of error of 10-20% (you get slightly different numbers depending on where you look) but it gives a sense of the order of magnitude at least.
Vafan 😳
If we calculate that one of the parents reduces their working hours to half time
50% of the salary = 38,000 × 0.5 = 19,000 SEK/month
19,000 × 12 months × 12 years = 2.736 million
200,000 children × 2.736 million SEK = 547 billion SEK/year
You have 12 years in the calculation but write it as per year
Yes, I count on 12 years and that is correct.
If 200,000 children are born and they are entitled to the reduction for 12 years, there will be 400,000 children in year 2, 600,000 children in year 3, etc.
If the system is to be operational over time, there will be 200,000 x 12 children each year whose parents are entitled to 50% compensation.
What is not included is that some parents will be parents to more than one child so there will be some overlap. For example, if there are three years between two children, you will receive the half-time compensation for 15 years instead of 12, it will not be 2×12 years.
There are studies showing that economic incentives do not lead to more people choosing to have children, however, they do affect those who already want to have children in such a way that they dare to have them earlier, or dare to have them even if they do not have a job, or have not yet obtained well-paid jobs, etc.
Hungary, China, and South Korea are countries that have introduced one-time bonuses, increased child benefits, provided tax benefits, etc., but without yielding anything other than marginal results. To some extent, Japan as well, even though the benefits and compensations provided there are lower than what we have in Sweden today.
In fact, Sweden already has among the highest “benefits” today.
Do we need so many more children?
The AI revolution means that many routine jobs will disappear. 80% of office jobs will disappear, taxis and buses will become self-driving so we won’t need to import any professors from Syria to drive taxis. AI will be able to diagnose illnesses in healthcare, with a simple scan every month your diseases can be stopped or limited before they become serious and require treatment.
The need for labor will decrease and we will have more time for other things. Some naively believe that they will have a lot of time to go to the theater, send dick pics on Grindr, and everything else to fulfill themselves. The reality will probably be very different for those who are not at the top of the food chain. Suddenly, they can’t afford daycare and care for the elderly. They are forced back to multi-generational living and having children is reserved for those who are genetically healthy, they may even turn it into a job while the rest are sterilized.
A dystopian future for those of us who like children.
FORGET about finances (we have five, now all of age, children, admittedly with modest-but-not-meager salaries as a nurse and salesperson within the healthcare sector). We could afford a co-op in the city center. Admittedly, we lived in tight quarters, but there were no alternatives.
It’s about TIME and ENERGY and a society adapted to the norm of having two children.
(Find a CAR that works? Find housing?)
There are DEMANDS for a certain level of life/activities/Instagram-friendliness/you-name-it. It’s EGO, the unwillingness to put one’s own needs aside.
What did we give up?
Going out. Having fika/eating out. Socializing. Traveling.
Not because of money – we didn’t have the energy to consume what we earned – but because of time and energy.
We both worked part-time but very briefly, it was actually associated with more stress than working full-time, and the job was vital because of social contacts and stimulation. That’s where you could unwind.
Of course, we gave up certain things in terms of career advancement.
Cleaning, he he – let’s just say I was a strong advocate for the so-called hygiene hypothesis, and grateful that this was before Instagram (which I refuse to use).
Having five was actually easier than having two, when they interact in a group it relieves the parents. They were very active in sports, but activities had to be ones accessible by subway or within walking distance.
We could afford a ski vacation but didn’t have the energy; whatever, there was always Hammarbybacken, or a day trip to Romme.
Maybe we didn’t choose designer clothes (nothing wrong with H&M), not the most luxurious interior or food, but WHO does that when you’re a first-generation traveler who lived on student aid and had to learn household economics the hard way?
Was it worth it? YES, DAMN RIGHT!
Even though I was so tired that I cried when yet another *damn parent meeting* was announced and lost my temper when some damn single-child parent who turned their kid into a PROJECT demanded that everyone sell cookies to finance a school trip (thanks, we’ll PAY instead, we can afford it but don’t have the time & energy).
In summary, I believe that finances are a non-issue for most people, BUT it depends on what you prioritize and how good you are at managing your finances.
We have children later in life, not all professions require lengthy university educations.
Then I think we must realize that we can’t have it ALL. We have unbelievably high expectations for quality of life, both materially and experientially. Me, me, me, and everything must be perfect. Everyone wants to live like influencers.
We’ve had it TOO GOOD.
Then suddenly we want it even better, without realizing what got us here.
When we haven’t been at war, we cut down on defense (what good does that do?). When we have access to electricity, we shut down nuclear power. When almost no one dies from childhood diseases, people stop vaccinating. When we have a socially and economically stable country, suddenly we want to become a Humanitarian Superpower and Trailblazer.
Young women are even afraid of pregnancy and childbirth (it HURTS! baby, LIFE hurts, fkn deal with it) and immediately opt for cesarean sections (DAMN FOOLS…), breastfeeding is difficult (argh! baby food is worse!). Etc.
Then it would be good if (all) benefits were replaced with deductions, society should encourage work, but I don’t believe in purely economic incentives for having children.
We were NOT better off financially/materially during the time when we had larger families (3-4 children as the norm).
It’s NOT about finances.
It’s worse.
It’s about new values, and almost unrealistic expectations of life.
You can’t change those overnight.
Good Merle, children are not just an expense, they bring a lot, not only during their youth but also as we get older.
I have two children who can take care of themselves, a grandchild who is looked after once a week, but also elderly in-laws who require a lot of care. Life is a chain and children are important in this chain.
We had children 5-10 years before our then friends and there was a lot that we had to choose to give up because of finances and time. But it was worth it and I don’t think we would have had more or fewer children because of any benefits.
One thing I FORGOT to mention is *state individualism*.
GOOD THOUGHT that we are not 100% dependent on families/relatives/congregation, etc., and can free ourselves when these are destructive. WRONG CONSEQUENCE when it has become the NORM to cut all ties. (While it doesn’t work for those who *really* need to leave, for example, clan society/honor oppression…)
I don’t know, I think it’s GOOD to be part of a WEB, a context, and not an island. Some are ‘found families’ – friends, colleagues, neighbors (BFR, the community…), non-profit organizations, sports clubs, etc. (I’m not so much into religion, but congregations too, of course).
What we build from the bottom up instead of being imposed by the state. Look at the Ukrainian civil society, for example, and its importance for the resistance (while our Swedish “civil society” is a tax-funded dumping ground for the unemployable).
Family (and relatives) is not a bad start in this web. I have seen it benefit my children to be many, to have siblings. They have learned a lot about community (that it gives so much but costs some individual freedoms), solidarity (the self must step back, the group benefits), and especially conflict resolution the hard way. The oldest are great with young children – they have experience.
And they will always have each other.
Yes, exactly. This is exactly what I think too. Thank you Merle for your posts.
Thank you for sharing!
I think you are on the right track, that the economy is not crucial for most people.
We have probably become comfortable and selfish, among other things.
Have you not miscalculated MXT and the halftime is 50 billion/year?
So the total cost would be a little over 300 billion/year?
I can consider cost items to give up to that amount 😀✊
We are also going to have reduced working hours with maintained salary already – main issue for the opposition
No, see above!
Then I’m in 👍
No children’s friends here directly 😳
Isn’t it about being against children, it’s the proposal on how to solve it that is criticized?
Unfortunately, I don’t have a better answer to offer myself other than I believe that we need to try to achieve attitude changes.
I think we unfortunately have to accept the way things are and create a society that functions without population growth, and perhaps rather a slow decrease.
I think all the comments above are kind
– concerns about the future.
If you have financial stability, good school, good leisure activities, the children practice sports, and you can afford it, does that help?
– realizing oneself
Now you can do that when you work less and can afford more?
– time
Yes, with more time you solve it.
It is indeed an interesting comment above from Westley and on Substack from Birger – we do not need more children.
I started from the general debate about the demographic problem, of course, and assumed that it was a problem.
So this is interesting now when googling around on it.
https://www.gp.se/ledare/gastkolumn/sverige-behover-inte-okad-invandring.b0926380-93a8-4d95-8d5d-48b2457b892e
First of all, we should work longer so that the group of working age becomes larger than before.
And then the argument has been used politically to improve the group of cheap labor – maybe that’s where we should start.
Need…. Brrr…
From a scientist’s perspective, the purpose of life is to continue, i.e. reproduction.
Children of Men (the book of course >>> the movie) is a dystopia, not an instruction manual.
Then the climate fools and the worst utilitarians (Tännsjö, for example?) can say what they want. 🙂
He probably has a point, it is mainly the employers who have the greatest interest in us growing in number.
High unemployment keeps wages down and provides a larger recruitment base.
Then why SKR is pushing in the same direction is a bit strange to me, but of course in most municipalities the municipality is among the largest employers.
It is probably the Center Party’s view on why they want high immigration. Very cheap labor, then the fact that it became an expensive item does not seem to worry them.
The fact that we have the opportunity to get a good education, both women and men, means that we have children later, and thus have fewer, and it becomes more difficult. So, it is a negative consequence of a fundamentally positive thing. Personally, I became a father for the first time at the age of 37, would have liked to have children earlier, but one should be two for such a thing. However, it ended up being only one, probably due to age.
Belief in the future can play a role, and of course it does more in some places, for example, Russia.
Opportunities for education probably play a bigger role than belief in the future, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many children born, for example in Palestine, and many developing countries, where they hardly have any belief in the future. It is probably also the case that they feel that many children provide a more secure future with more people to support the family. A bit like it was here 100 years ago.
“Last year, the average number of children born per woman in Sweden was 1.43, the lowest number ever recorded. Now the government is appointing an investigation to understand why the desire to have children is decreasing.
– The state needs to consider factors that constitute obstacles to childbirth, such as housing, economy, gender equality, and work-life balance, says Minister for Social Affairs Jakob Forssmed (KD) at a press conference.”
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/regeringen-oroad-over-att-for-fa-barn-fods-utredning-tillsatts
“The Swedish birth rate is at a historically low level, and the government is now appointing an investigation to find out why.
Conflicts in the world and climate change are factors that several young people believe can be crucial for their decision to have children.
– The way the world looks right now, I don’t think it’s very appealing for many young people to have children, says Julia Svensson, 25.”
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/krig-och-klimat-avgorande-for-ungas-vilja-att-skaffa-barn
“War, economy, and fear of childbirth. There are many theories about why the birth rate is decreasing. Now, Sweden, just like Finland has recently done, will try to determine the reasons behind it.
– Personally, I believe that one piece of the puzzle is that those of us who are having children now or would have had children now are the first generation to grow up with the internet, says podcaster and author Anna Björklund.”
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/anna-bjorklund-folk-uppfattar-barn-som-valdigt-jobbiga