It's a case of "you're both right" imo.
On the one hand, if people don't want kids, more money won't make them want kids, and yes, if you're willing to be poorer, you can have more kids.
On the other hand, it is obtuse to pretend that people don't self-regulate their reproduction on an economic basis. That isn't a new thing. Even in the middle ages people who didn't have a house and a means of support generally didn't marry.
There's an extreme of "I don't want kids no matter what", and an extreme of "I will have kids no matter what". Twitter discourse always polarizes around these extremes. But most people are not on these extreme ends of the reproductive motivation spectrum. They probably want kids, but only if they can afford to provide those kids with a decent standard of living. If they can't, they won't have them.
Right now most people feel like it is absurdly impossible to provide even one child with the standard of living they had growing up. So they don't have kids.
Now you can say "well just accept a lower standard of living", and, sure. But most people won't do this.
If you want more kids, fix the economy. Sure, encourage them to make babies, that will help ... but only if they can afford a house. If they can't you can propagandize them about natalism until you're blue in the face, it won't do anything.
View Tweet
