Making our towns and cities a safe and supportive place for children is a great way to promote having children.
A primary reason people choose not to have children (when they get the chance to choose) is not wanting to bring children into an inhospitable place/world/life
Tax cuts for parents. When 50-60% of what I make goes to the state, which provides "universal"(ie. subpar) services, 20-30% of the rest goes to a landlord because home ownership is no longer afforable, it's pretty hard to have more than 1 child.
Austria has some excessive taxes that take money away from those who can't reach the public housing because they're not deemed poor enough. People seem to get destroyed when socialists get involved and take more than half of everything they have even though they should be getting support instead.
I'm not against public housing but Austria is an especially bad answer to my question. Not sure if you have ever visited but it really isn't any utopia. The public housing is still too expensive anyways.
It is often argued that high taxes are detrimental, especially when they seem to disproportionately affect the middle class. However, in a system like Austria's, progressive taxation is designed to finance public goods and services, ensuring a high standard of living for all citizens. Austria's tax system, though progressive, provides a robust social safety net that includes healthcare, education, and housing. These services contribute to social stability and economic mobility, which are critical for the overall health of society.
Contrary to the claim that public housing in Austria is "still too expensive," Austria is renowned for its effective public housing policy. In Vienna, for example, about 60% of residents live in municipally built, owned, or managed housing, which is heavily subsidized to keep it affordable. These housing policies ensure that a broad range of income groups has access to affordable living spaces, not just the poorest. This inclusivity helps prevent the social segregation seen in many cities where housing is left entirely to the market.
The proof is in the outcomes. Austria enjoys a high Human Development Index and low income inequality compared to many countries with less robust social safety systems. These outcomes are not despite Austria's socialist policies but largely because of them. The systems in place ensure that wealth generated by the economy is distributed in a way that benefits a wide segment of the population, supporting overall economic stability and growth.
It's nice that 60% of Viennese people have access to cheaper (not cheap!) housing in a capital city, too bad for those who couldn't get there either because of overdemand or being just outside the bracket, and too bad for those who can't afford to live in Vienna at all.
I'm not sure what's interesting about the income inequality index - that just means you can't get rich there to pay the actually large taxes so the state wouldn't need to take the bulk from slightly less poor people instead of the actually rich people. Switzerland has a worse inequality index rating and yet better social services while having lower taxes.
HDI is entirely uninteresting in this discussion - that's simply because Austria-Hungary industrialized early, it has nothing to do with the socialist policies there. The neighboring countries like Slovenia or Czech Republic have 1/4 tax rates and HDI is similar, even though both lived through many decades of communist destruction and in case of Slovenia also wars, while Austria was on the western side of the curtain. And of course Switzerland again.
People from Czechia and Slovenia used to come to Austria to make some money, that's not the case anymore - now I see many Austrians coming here, especially higher earning people like software engineers. Socialism destroys itself through this kind of brain and capital drain.
The concern about the availability of public housing in Vienna for those who are just outside the eligibility criteria or who face over-demand is valid. However, it’s important to note that Austria’s housing policy, particularly in Vienna, is not only about providing cheap housing but also about maintaining a diverse socio-economic mix. This approach mitigates the risk of creating ghettos or economically segregated areas, which can be more detrimental to societal cohesion. Moreover, Vienna's housing model includes a variety of supports such as housing benefits and subsidized rents, which broaden the accessibility beyond just the lowest income brackets.
The argument about income inequality and the inability to become rich underestimates the benefits of having a more equal society. While Switzerland does indeed have lower taxes and high-quality social services, its model relies heavily on a specific economic structure that benefits from unique factors like banking secrecy and a strong financial sector, which are not replicable everywhere. Austria’s approach, focusing on broad wealth distribution through progressive taxation, ensures that the benefits of economic growth are more evenly shared among its population, contributing to overall social stability and individual well-being.
While historical industrialization does play a role in a country's development, attributing Austria’s high HDI solely to its industrial past overlooks the significant impacts of its current social policies. Comparatively, countries like Slovenia and the Czech Republic have indeed made impressive strides in HDI, despite their histories of communist governance. However, these countries have also increasingly adopted social policies that resemble Western European models, acknowledging the benefits of such systems.
The observation that Austrians, particularly high-skilled professionals such as software engineers, are moving to countries like the Czech Republic or Slovenia can reflect a broader European trend of seeking opportunities across borders due to the EU’s labor mobility policies. This movement isn't necessarily indicative of systemic failures in Austria’s social or economic systems but rather of a dynamic European labor market. Furthermore, Austria continues to attract a significant number of Eastern European workers, underscoring its continued economic pull.
Comparing tax rates and HDI between Austria and its neighbors without considering the full context of social services and quality of life can be misleading. Lower taxes can sometimes lead to underfunded public services, which might necessitate higher out-of-pocket expenses for citizens, negating the perceived benefit of lower taxes. Austria’s model prioritizes comprehensive welfare provisions, which can lead to higher taxes but also reduces personal financial risk and increases life quality.
>This approach mitigates the risk of creating ghettos or economically segregated areas, which can be more detrimental to societal cohesion.
it's not working that well, there are plenty of "hotspots". Districts usually have specific demographies. there are wealthy districts and then there are districts that mostly have people from other countries (turkey, serbia etc)
I'm all for innovative ideas in supporting families and children, but the examples from the article hardly count as "successfully reversing fertility declines".
- Nagi, Japan. TFR: 2.95 (replacement rate is ~2.1). Astonishing. This is the only true success in the article.
- Nagareyama, Japan. TFR: 1.5. At this rate, the population will drop by ~25% every generation.
- South Tyrol, Italy. TFR: 1.64. Marginally better than Nagareyama. Noticeably better than the rest of Italy (TFR: 1.2), but still a population in strong decline.
- Czechia. TFR: 1.6 (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...). Better than the European median, but not exceptional. Roughly on a par with Lithuania (1.63), Belgium (1.59), and the UK (1.57). Noticeably behind France (1.79). None of these countries at such TFRs are even capable of maintaining their population at a stable level, and should all be regarded as undergoing some level of population collapse.
"successfully reversed declining fertility rates by consistently improving and working on family policy" not "successfully reversing fertility declines"
It's kinda sus that you leave the whole "rates" part out
- Japan (1.2) and Tokyo (.99) vs Nagareyama (1.5 considering it's in Chiba and Tokyo) & Nagi (2.95)
- Considering the Italian Birth Rate is in freefall whole South Tyrol is holding steady and above not just Italy's but also the UK.
- Czecha had a 1.8 until a drop to 1.6 during 2021 to 2022 according towards your dataset with Belgium, Lit. and the UK are now below
Considinder Czecha had a 1.1 in 2000, its only just makes it more impressive
It's influenced by the population wave caused by a communist president in early 1970s. The results are subpar if you normalize for that. There are a lot more adults in the age to have children right now than before, but it's going to drop hard very soon.
One thing that perplexes me about this topic is that people don't just pull up a historical birth rate chart, find the bit not that long ago when fertility rates were around 4, and then ask "why was it 4 then?".
Followed by asking "how can we restore those things?".
I really doubt it was because any of the popular reasons trotted out whenever this topic comes up, which usually blame money, despite us having much more money now than in days past when birthrates were way higher.
I wonder why it's so hard for people just to say simple things like "it's because everyone carefully uses contraception now, and treats sex as a consumption good, because they want it but not its result - a scenario most of them treat as on par with catching malaria".
I wonder how much of this is a selection bias of people already set on having a family choosing to settle in such a place. E.g. Tokyo population increases, Japan population decreases. Aside from the Czech example it doesn't seem like much was accomplished.
These locations required many decades of thoughtful planning to almost reach 2.0 TFR (sans the first example, which is over 2).
The wealthier a country is, the more $ required to break the opportunity cost calculus.
E.g. the US would require over $200k in subsidies per child to reach native fertility rates over 2.1 amongst the non-orthodox religious subset.
Likelihood that this happens amongst the boomer class that still thinks like Malthus on average? Zero. They have all the political power, but no incentive.
In the US, the cost to raise a child 0-18 per the Brookings Institute (2022), is $310k. This does not include day care or college. Children are a luxury good in the current economic system config, plain and simple, and there is no will whatsoever to invest materially in moving the needle towards support for parents. And so, the TFR marches ever downward.
Future political reps might have the will to course correct, but the current folks will have to age out first.
> The town began offering free medical services for children until junior high school ... Over the years, those policies have expanded to include free medical care for children through high school ...
I don't understand. Japanese health care is US like by default?
