Why Should We Have More Children?

 There is an important fact that may not be well known: nations must have a fertility rate of 2.1 – or 2,100 births to 1,000 women -- to replace its dying citizens. A fertility rate is the “average number of babies a woman is expected to have in her lifetime,” according to Professor Peter St. Onge. 

The total fertility rate for United States has been sinking further each year, but the population continues to grow through immigration. Other nations do not have that source. Japan is one example.

Last week, Japan’s government announced the country lost 861,000 people last year as the country’s fertility rate – the average number of babies a woman is expected to have in her lifetime – fell to a record low of 1.2.

For perspective, if you start with 100 million people and have 1.2 babies each, after three generations, you’re down to just 20 million people.

On a related note, over 65s now account for 30% of Japan’s population, while a new study finds there are 9 million vacant houses in Japan – about 1 in 6 homes in Japan is vacant and falling down.

St. Onge explained that the shortage of babies is driven by government policies. “Slow growth and inflation force two-income families, while mandatory government pensions remove the main historical incentive to have kids – to support you in old age.”

In the 1950s, Japanese women had on average three and a half children. In 1961, universal pensions were introduced, and the birthrate – and marriage rate – started dropping. Then came the 1970s inflation, which took the percent of young Japanese women working from 46% in 1969 to 83%.

The finishing blow is the lost-decades stagnation, which forced even married women to work to make ends meet. The percentage of married Japanese women age[s] 25 to 29 – prime childbearing ages – who were working went from 50% in 2006 to 80% today. In fact, today in Japan there are more young women working than young me working.

The government’s response has been to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic: One-time cash bounties, or the Left’s favorite, subsidized child care. Or, of course, importing new people.

St. Onge explained that none of the government’s responses work because “Immigrants bring their own labor shortage with them.” He said that if immigrants solved the problem, the United States could just “annex Canada and have millions of spare workers.”

Meanwhile, many European countries have tried both cash for babies and free child care, and it doesn’t work. Scandinavia, for example, has universal child care and the result is fertility rate of 1.5 in Sweden and Denmark, 1.4 in Norway, and 1.3 in Finland.

So, no, it’s not a lack of government spending; it’s the government spending itself that drives inflation and stagnant incomes to where there’s no financial cushion to start a family.

Meanwhile, government pensions reward doing the bare minimum by equalizing payments and disincentivizing hard work.

So, what should citizens do when it becomes obvious that the government cannot help a situation? Married couples can go against the bureaucracy and have more babies. “In a dynamic economy, research says men actually make more once you have kids, because you work harder. This is called the ‘fatherhood wage premium,’ and studies find it essentially covers the extra costs.” St. Onge’s parting thought: “So, while the developed world turns out the lights, it’s your kids who will inherit the earth.”