It's almost tautological but the younger you start the more kids you generally have.
Pro-natalist policies are generally focussed on the "have one more" margin and not at the "start three years earlier" margin.
The problem with "have one more" is that fertility is already declining from mid-30s and the opportunity costs are higher due to generally higher earning power.
There were a few girls in my high school who had kids in their late teens. At the time I was utterly scornful as I reckoned they were giving up a decade or more of child-free comfort and earning. Two decades on my opinion had reversed. Although those girls are for sure poorer than they would otherwise have been they've had double the amount of child-time as I've had, and it's something I would've done earlier if I'd known how rewarding it is.
Why would they want to prevent births when every country is having a fertility crisis? Glad this could help get the numbers up lol.
Our first just turned 4 months old and it's been great! Anyone who tells you that raising kids is "sooo so hard" or "you'll never sleep" is bullshit. Everyone deep down wants kids and should have them.
1. University-aged females are pre-selected for delayed gratification and extended education. There might not be as much effectiveness for childbirth with the baby-cuteness association program.
2. Reduce the appeal of the materialist lifestyle for women. Apply a monetary incentive of free university education for women, provided they have at least 1 birth in a marriage. Fertility is higher at lower ages. Alternatively, just give them an IQ test at age 16-18-- most university outcomes are mostly predetermined already and 95% of university knowledge is lost within a few years...
3. Reduce the automobile requirements for transportation (make the cities more like Japan). Increase the feasibility of home-stay mothers after education or increase the availability of child-care by decreasing the zoning requirements
4. Remove subsidies for children where the mother has at least a university education, or give lifetime tax exemption status for women with 2 children and at least X education or IQ score, and give a subsidy for as long as the pair stays 'married' or the spouse also has at least X education or the woman works part-time after maternity leave
5. Bombard cuteness + womanhood ads everywhere like Hitler did at the appropriate locations
6. Abortion is already mitigating most of the wedlock births as well as birth control pills for the higher IQ. Less intelligent couples are less successful at birth control. So make women look as sexually unappealing as possible within the 13-17 age group which should theoretically decrease the propensity for impulsivity amongst lower executive-functioning males (i.e. not Catholic schoolgirl uniforms)
7. Make the work environment more hostile to women, or non-rewarding
8. Make the work environment less imposing/restrictive to men.
9. Change the nature of the education structure to stream people by the nature of their (intellectually) suited work, as well as create a life-training skills program funded by the government while getting rid of universities to reduce structural unemployment
10. Reduce or negate inflation to make household formation feasible. Go back to borrowing money from the government instead of private banks like Canada in the past.
11. Makes dogs and cats 20x more expensive with a tax, unless one is married or single past 35, they get a government rebate. No surrogates lifetime partners.
12. No capital taxes for couples with children for purchasing homes, or upgrading.
13. Restore sexual fidelity norms, or apply low sexual-fidelity norms but with a caveat of voluntary sterilization for subsidized brothels, hook-up clubs, etc.
Overall (a) behavioural modifications or (b) economic sanctions/benefits and/or a combination is necessary to achieve above-replacement fertility for smarter individuals. Women are generally more conformist so pro-natalist propaganda 'for the better' good can work, provided the alternative (solo career) lifestyle or DINKY isn't seen as better or downplayed (not conspicuous consumption like China).
14. Although I am with Musk on this one, genetically engineering Einsteins is more feasible than asking smart people to have more babies, which means data collection and harvesting. Also yes, they have a dysgenic policy running (with negative eugenics) + depopulation program running at the moment with city densification so the above points are pretty moot given what the elites are trying to do.
This is a gene focused blog. Teenage pregnancy can easily be explained by IQ. The Bell Curve already went over this.
If the goal is to increase birth rates, increasing teenage pregnancy is a bad way. Financial incentives can probably work better. Hungary is eliminating taxes for mothers under 30. We need to wait to see how that works out.
Higher education in women has proven the best birth suppressant. Perhaps encourage higher education AFTER they have children, and aid them in their second career (the first being motherhood)?
Much cheaper than paying people to have babies. I recall one study from Canada where it took $700k (probably closer to a million with inflation) for just one extra baby to be produced. Of course, they don't want you to have more babies--that's the whole point of depopulation--so no such programs will happen in the US.
It's almost tautological but the younger you start the more kids you generally have.
Pro-natalist policies are generally focussed on the "have one more" margin and not at the "start three years earlier" margin.
The problem with "have one more" is that fertility is already declining from mid-30s and the opportunity costs are higher due to generally higher earning power.
There were a few girls in my high school who had kids in their late teens. At the time I was utterly scornful as I reckoned they were giving up a decade or more of child-free comfort and earning. Two decades on my opinion had reversed. Although those girls are for sure poorer than they would otherwise have been they've had double the amount of child-time as I've had, and it's something I would've done earlier if I'd known how rewarding it is.
Why would they want to prevent births when every country is having a fertility crisis? Glad this could help get the numbers up lol.
Our first just turned 4 months old and it's been great! Anyone who tells you that raising kids is "sooo so hard" or "you'll never sleep" is bullshit. Everyone deep down wants kids and should have them.
Damn that is a lot of abortions.
Are they doing studies of the propensity for a black baby-bot to encourage miscegenation in non-blacks?
1. University-aged females are pre-selected for delayed gratification and extended education. There might not be as much effectiveness for childbirth with the baby-cuteness association program.
2. Reduce the appeal of the materialist lifestyle for women. Apply a monetary incentive of free university education for women, provided they have at least 1 birth in a marriage. Fertility is higher at lower ages. Alternatively, just give them an IQ test at age 16-18-- most university outcomes are mostly predetermined already and 95% of university knowledge is lost within a few years...
3. Reduce the automobile requirements for transportation (make the cities more like Japan). Increase the feasibility of home-stay mothers after education or increase the availability of child-care by decreasing the zoning requirements
4. Remove subsidies for children where the mother has at least a university education, or give lifetime tax exemption status for women with 2 children and at least X education or IQ score, and give a subsidy for as long as the pair stays 'married' or the spouse also has at least X education or the woman works part-time after maternity leave
5. Bombard cuteness + womanhood ads everywhere like Hitler did at the appropriate locations
6. Abortion is already mitigating most of the wedlock births as well as birth control pills for the higher IQ. Less intelligent couples are less successful at birth control. So make women look as sexually unappealing as possible within the 13-17 age group which should theoretically decrease the propensity for impulsivity amongst lower executive-functioning males (i.e. not Catholic schoolgirl uniforms)
7. Make the work environment more hostile to women, or non-rewarding
8. Make the work environment less imposing/restrictive to men.
9. Change the nature of the education structure to stream people by the nature of their (intellectually) suited work, as well as create a life-training skills program funded by the government while getting rid of universities to reduce structural unemployment
10. Reduce or negate inflation to make household formation feasible. Go back to borrowing money from the government instead of private banks like Canada in the past.
11. Makes dogs and cats 20x more expensive with a tax, unless one is married or single past 35, they get a government rebate. No surrogates lifetime partners.
12. No capital taxes for couples with children for purchasing homes, or upgrading.
13. Restore sexual fidelity norms, or apply low sexual-fidelity norms but with a caveat of voluntary sterilization for subsidized brothels, hook-up clubs, etc.
Overall (a) behavioural modifications or (b) economic sanctions/benefits and/or a combination is necessary to achieve above-replacement fertility for smarter individuals. Women are generally more conformist so pro-natalist propaganda 'for the better' good can work, provided the alternative (solo career) lifestyle or DINKY isn't seen as better or downplayed (not conspicuous consumption like China).
14. Although I am with Musk on this one, genetically engineering Einsteins is more feasible than asking smart people to have more babies, which means data collection and harvesting. Also yes, they have a dysgenic policy running (with negative eugenics) + depopulation program running at the moment with city densification so the above points are pretty moot given what the elites are trying to do.
This is a gene focused blog. Teenage pregnancy can easily be explained by IQ. The Bell Curve already went over this.
If the goal is to increase birth rates, increasing teenage pregnancy is a bad way. Financial incentives can probably work better. Hungary is eliminating taxes for mothers under 30. We need to wait to see how that works out.
https://www.businessinsider.com/hungary-income-tax-new-moms-encourage-women-children-birth-rates-2023-1?r=US&IR=T
Higher education in women has proven the best birth suppressant. Perhaps encourage higher education AFTER they have children, and aid them in their second career (the first being motherhood)?
Much cheaper than paying people to have babies. I recall one study from Canada where it took $700k (probably closer to a million with inflation) for just one extra baby to be produced. Of course, they don't want you to have more babies--that's the whole point of depopulation--so no such programs will happen in the US.