So, the solution is to... not provide education? The logic doesn't make sense. You say this yourself: "I would still have them if I knew just how hard it would be"

If it reduces birth rates, that's not due to education alone. That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families.

You should know this with two kids. Any help is better than no help. Women want to work. Women want to go to school. That's what this topic is about.

▲

liveoneggs 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

countries with high birth rates right now have government support for families?

▲

traderj0e an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You'd be surprised how much people "want" to do something has to do with what they're told or pressured to do growing up.

▲

giantg2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"That's due to a lack of investment by governments to support those families."

Please show the evidence for this being true. Birthrates are low even in countries that provide a lot of support.

▲

acdha 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No country provides a lot of support. Some countries provide more but inevitably if you poll people they’ll mention that they mention significant financial deterrents, not to mention things like climate change, all of which are valid. People only need one of them to be true to decide to have fewer children, while society needs to help address all of them.

For example, if your government provides housing and childcare support—and say that’s the unicorn where those are consistently available, high quality, and cover the full cost—but still culturally tends to mommy-track careers into dead ends, despite doing those other things well you are going to have a lot of women decide not to risk multiple decades of lifetime earnings.

	▲	giantg2 31 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		"No country provides a lot of support." The evidence suggests this is not true. The rest of your comment points to non-financial issues. https://www.newsweek.com/norway-birth-rate-fertility-rate-pa...