> not even up to $111k is enough to convince enough women to have more children to maintain replacement rates (and I don't blame them)

What is the lifetime private cost of raising a child in Norway? The $111k sounds like it's just offsetting the opportunity cost of birth, not the opportunity cost nor direct costs of raising a kid.

▲

vidarh an hour ago | parent [-]

High in absolute terms, but lowered significantly by monthly child support payments and heavily subsidised nursery costs. As such, the total cost relative to the also relatively high incomes are better than in most developed countries.

Your right it doesn't offset opportunity cost. The point is that even providing assistance a high multiple of most other countries has been insufficient to get above replacement.

I'm sure there's probably a number that is high enough, but it clearly needs to be higher than Norway, and even scaling for cost of living differences very few countries are near Norwegian child benefit levels, so it seems likely it will be exceedingly expensive.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> sure there's probably a number that is high enough, but it clearly needs to be higher than Norway

There are three cost buckets: cost of birth, opportunity cost of birth, cost of child rearing and opportunity cost of parenting.

Norway is solving the first and probably the second while subsidizing the third. That leaves the opportunity costs untouched and direct costs, still, a net negative. Norway would need raise its annual payment to parents to completely cover the actual cost of raising a child, and then something for the career hit. I don’t know what those numbers are, but given it would directly increase the tax base, it’s almost precisely what one should borrow for.

	▲	wolfhumble 12 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Two things I’d think about here: 1. Maybe this isn’t mainly a money problem? 2. And if it is a money problem, there might still be trade-offs. If you give people enough support, some may decide it makes more sense to stay home with their kids. That could mean fewer people working, less tax income, and then less money available to solve the problem long term. (And yes, I know Norway has the wealth fund, around $400k per inhabitant or something like that. But I’m keeping that out of it here, because otherwise it becomes harder to compare Norway with other countries.) There are also other things to think about. For example: Do we want a system where one part of society has more kids and stays more at home, while another part has fewer kids and focuses more on careers? I’m saying this because earlier in Norway, families had more freedom to choose between staying home with kids with financial support, or sending kids to kindergarten. Some political parties didn’t like that model because: a) They saw it as bad for gender equality. b) Immigrant women were more likely to stay home than Norwegian women, which could make integration harder. So I think there’s probably more going on here than just money, even though money obviously matters too.
	▲	vidarh an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes, but again, the point is to illustrate just how high a multiple of current benefits elsewhere you can reach without it being sufficient.