The Future Is Too Expensive – A New Theory on Collapsing Birth Rates
Reception of the “temporal inflation” idea
- Some readers find the framing helpful: people discount the future because it feels unstable, meaningless, or hostile, which rationally discourages having kids.
- Others argue this isn’t new: past eras (WWII, Cold War, famines, nuclear dread) felt more dangerous yet didn’t see comparable fertility collapses. They question whether vibes about the future can be a primary cause.
Economic constraints and housing
- Many see affordability as central: extreme housing costs, multi-decade mortgages, precarious jobs, gig work, and expensive healthcare/education make long-term commitments feel reckless.
- Argument that dual-income norms “sold off the slack”: once two incomes became standard, prices (especially housing, childcare, services) rose to consume them; now governments try to “buy back” this slack with relatively tiny subsidies.
- Younger workers feel they transfer huge shares of income to older landlords/retirees via rent, taxes, and pensions, undermining trust in the system.
Work, gender, and opportunity cost
- Strong emphasis on women’s increased choices: when women can access education, careers, and contraception, many rationally decide against or limit motherhood.
- Motherhood is seen as a large, asymmetric career hit: long résumé gaps, lost earning power, and expectation that women are the default caregivers.
- Opportunity cost is front-loaded and huge: you pay in your 20s–30s, then also face diminished retirement security.
Culture, norms, and risk attitudes
- Several argue it’s “cultural, not financial”: past poor societies had many children; now the socially acceptable minimum standard for parenting has inflated (big home, enrichment, elite schooling).
- Teen pregnancy and “accidental” births have plummeted due to stigma and contraception; births are now deliberate, heavily optimized decisions.
- Pressure to be the “perfect parent,” plus the intense college/achievement rat race, makes additional children feel overwhelming.
Urbanization, community, and childcare
- Move from farms (kids as economic assets) to cities (kids as net financial/time liabilities) is repeatedly cited.
- Collapse of extended family and local communities removes cheap childcare and practical support; grandparents prioritize their own lives, peers move far away, and everything is replaced by expensive market services.
Demographic patterns and examples
- South Korea’s extreme low fertility and inverted age pyramid are a focal point: current population is flat only because of delayed effects, longer lives, and time lags.
- Others note similar declines in very different contexts (Nordics, Japan, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, parts of Africa), arguing single-cause stories don’t fit.
- Birth control access and women’s education are seen as the only near-universal correlates across regions.
Values, environment, and whether low fertility is bad
- Some say the species is fine at 8B+ and that fewer humans are environmentally beneficial; low birth rates are not a crisis but a correction.
- Others worry about aging societies: too few workers to support pensions, healthcare, and elder care, and potential social breakdown if childless cohorts expect support from others’ children.
- There’s tension between criticizing an economic system that requires endless demographic growth and fearing the system’s collapse if growth stops.
Policy ideas and unresolved tensions
- Suggestions include: treating childrearing as a paid public-good profession, generous parental stipends, cheaper housing and childcare, and restructuring work to allow one parent to reduce hours without penalty.
- Skeptics note political resistance: such policies effectively tax the childless and the young, while powerful older voters benefit from the status quo.
- Overall, commenters see collapsing birth rates as multifactorial: economics, gender norms, urbanization, risk-averse culture, and structural incentives all interact, with no consensus “single root cause.”