This is trivially fixed by paying people to have and raise children (edit: pay them more than the cost of the children). That no government does this implies to me that it's not really a huge emergency. That this idea doesn't even enter the public forum implies to me that people are still more terrified of maybe-eugenics than they are of falling birth rates, so again it's not that pressing.

Edit NB: paying people more than the cost of the children would cause a lot of poor or dumb people to have kids just for money, so you'd ideally have some standard to meet before you get this money, which is where the eugenics comment applies

▲

irilesscent 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The article lists several examples of government programs from different regions that pay people to have kids and their efficacy.

	▲	eudamoniac 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, I was unclear. I know they pay or give tax breaks to some extent. I meant pay near or even above the cost of raising the kids, i.e. make having kids a net financial benefit. As far as I can tell even the most generous policy is not even close to this.

▲

maxglute 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wealthy MENA countries functionally does this, and their TFR is either below replacement or trending to below replacement. And they have other pushers like religion and cheap migrant labour / nannies to incentivize large families.

The TLDR is I think state demographic planning cannot positively incentiivize >2 kids. Unless cohort is extremely trad/religion pilled to have as many kids as possible.

At some point need to negative incentivize, i.e. taxes, limits on wealth transfer or additional burdens for not hitting family quota. Probably even more unsavory demographic programs, i.e. birth increased by 2% after roe vs wade overturned. But forcing people to start families is harder than forcing them abort.