Is there an argument against paying people high wages for having kids?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

Given that we live in times where inflation is making it harder to afford every day food, housing, utilities etc. Along with many Western Nations also have issues with a declining birthrate, shouldn't it be seen as a slamdunk option by governments to just pay their citizens the equivalent of an upper class salary for having lots of kids?

But how does this differ from existing welfare?

Unlike the current system where it's basically used to subsidize poverty, the government actually needs to pay people in society who have steady careers but have been effectively priced out from ever buying a home or struggling to keep up with their grocery bills.

A quick example is in my country, even an $80,000 salary is still considered shit with the only chance of survival is having to pay high rent prices till the day you die. It's thus not a surprise to see fellow citizens turn to drugs or even kill themselves, instead of following the natural path of getting married and raising kids.

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]TrabWhite Nationalist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If I recall correctly Hungary is the only nation in the West attempting to incentivize their native White peoples birth rates to increase (granted via tax breaks)

Every other nation in the West minus Russia will hand out benefits to non-Whites, discourage the native White population from families/having kids, and just import 3rd worlders to the nation

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The trouble is that most people want to feel financially secure and have decent housing before they bring children into the world so only paying them a decent wage only after the kids are born isn't going to get that many more people settling down. No one who's going to make good parent will want to plan their future around the government supporting their family. Maybe it would encourage relatively wealthy people who already have money in their family and a lot of support to have kids. And those who already have one kid to have more.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The trouble is that most people want to feel financially secure and have decent housing before they bring children into the world so only paying them a decent wage only after the kids are born isn't going to get that many more people settling down. No one who's going to make good parent will want to plan their future around the government supporting their family.

I apologize if my OP didn't address this earlier, but theoretically, you would get the money the same time you commit to starting a family.

I'll use an example: a 21 year old who just finished university and has a job lined up. Right away, the government announces an incentive that anyone who gets married is now eligible to have their debts paid off, receive a discount on buying their first car, and they can live in any neighborhood of their choosing.

There could also be another incentive for the wife. In exchange for giving up the career world, lets pretend she's paid $100,000 a year just to be a stay at home mother? And of course, every child she gives birth to raises her yearly salary? If she births 4 babies, her "mother salary" is now $200,000.

So now the choice becomes obvious. Would most people still choose to remain single, and slave away at their jobs while having almost no money left to put towards their savings? Or do they take the government sponsored marriage system, and start owning luxuries much sooner rather than waiting decades for it?

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's not a bad idea. It's a good alternative to the feminist structures of my country.

[–]FreakyFalangistNational Catholicism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not an economist by any means but pro-natalist policies like these could only be a good thing in the long run I'd imagine. Kids growing up in stable homes are likely to be higher earners/more productive members of society and not be on welfare/cause crime.

[–]chadwickofwv 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All you need to do in order to get white Americans to have more children is remove the extreme risks that current laws have created.

Completely get rid of no fault divorce.

Get rid of alimony.

Completely do away with family court.

Base custody first on who can support the children, unless that person has been convicted of child abuse.

Do this and within 5 years I'll be married and have at least one kid.

[–]ifuckredditsnitches_Resident Pajeet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The problem with fertility isn't really money but time, those druggies you mention have a higher tfr than upper middle class careerists because they have no jobs and nothing better to do than fuck and get high. This was essentially the status quo before modernity for the broader population. So if your solution can get high quality people away from surrogate activities like higher education and modern careers then yeah it could be effective. If it was made universal I think the cost of living would rise so much that it stops helping.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If it was made universal I think the cost of living would rise so much that it stops helping.

In my ideal world, cost of living would be matched to the current needs of replacing babies.

So say for example the program is a success and now everyone has large families with children. That's when the government can divert resources from fertility and use it to fund other projects like science research, healthcare etc.

As a result, the incentive for birth rates will decline and people can focus on having meaningful careers again.

Otherwise, the only solution I can think of for having excess children is to have them colonize other lands. It's sound sci-fi, but sending them to colonize Mars would solve this issue.

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That mean not having a nation's citizens enslaved to the economy and instead having the economy serve the people.

Can't work in the multicultural hellholes our governments have constructed, hence the nonsense of Scandinavian or Eastern European comparisons while ignoring the demographics.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I remember, when I was young, I couldn't grasp the idea that economists would be so stupid to treat every citizen as the same, like atoms? Like what? How does that even make sense?

[–]Nombre27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah.

That's one giant contradiction that's worth pointing out to liberal-types. They'll give lip-service to it but then support/enact contradictory policies. It's a worldview based on irreconcilable differences and then just ignoring those differences until things break. Really shows how stupid and/or malicious they are.

[–]DragonerneJesus is white 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and then just ignoring those differences until things break.

and then they make up new theories to explain why it breaks. They will make so many explanations.

I remember the entire roadmap I had in my mind back then, of how to get out of the contradictions. But one day, I asked myself, maybe the simple explanation is the right one, and so many things started being so much easier to explain without requiring tons of reading and mental capacity.

[–]noshore4me 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you want inner city broads who work at the dollar store getting knocked up intentionally to get that money? Because that's how you get inner city broads who work at the dollar store getting knocked up to "get a raise."

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do you want inner city broads who work at the dollar store getting knocked up intentionally to get that money? Because that's how you get inner city broads who work at the dollar store getting knocked up to "get a raise."

If they accept a raise, it basically means they forfeit working those menial jobs and become full-time mothers instead.

That's not a bad trade off when you remember that's how 1950s society use to look like. A Single Male was expected to make enough money so that he could provide for an entire family. With Feminism, that all went out the window once Women joined the workforce, increasing the supply by 50%.

[–]zarthos 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Such policies, for them to be successful, would have to be ethnically and religiously discriminatory, at least here in Europe. Otherwise foreigners, especially Muslims, would simply take advantage of this and procreate at your expense.

[–]radicalcentristNational Centrism[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Otherwise foreigners, especially Muslims, would simply take advantage of this and procreate at your expense.

Technically they already do this. They wouldn't be getting on rickety boats and floating all the way to Europe if they didn't expect free stuff at the end of the trip.

It's definitely an issue, but I still think addressing the native birth rate is more important.