I think you are a few years early on this, but I expect a full-blown moral panic over birth rates in the US soon enough with attendant "Why aren't we encouraging college graduates to have babies?" arguments. The demographic trends are lined up for it, and you can hear the rumblings. Of course, immigration is the rational answer to this problem, but it will be easier to focus on why colleges are not doing more to make babies happen.
Around the time I left the University of Georgia, they changed the name of the College of Home Economics to the College of Family and Consumer Sciences. I expect it and similar programs to benefit from what's coming.
The perverse incentives of metrics for this one case should be fairly easy to fix once the panic gets underway. Can we fix the underlying econometric model that insists the only way to value a college education is a graduate's income right out of college? I'm afraid that one may not go away. It is just too easy to count and too aligned with how college has been sold.
It's so interesting that the top-down impulse is coming from these big state legislators who are coming at universities without looking at the large picture of what education is "for." I am just a small voice in this wilderness....
I think the whole model is broken. On the one hand, I think it was a big mistake to assume that everyone really ought to go to college out of high school. That's led to a lot of nonsense colleges and college courses which are little more than vocational training. Nothing wrong about vocational training. But let's be upfront about it. And there's nothing wrong with skilled trades, either.
On the other hand, I still believe in the old liberal arts vision of college as a place where you can gain a deeper knowledge of yourself and the world, not for any immediate practical value, but so you can contribute to the long-term health and growth of your society. I think you should spend your time in college on three things: 1) gaining general knowledge, 2) studying something you are passionate about, 3) learning something that will allow you to earn a living.
Sadly, I agree. Immigration won't be a real solution. It is the rational one, though, compared to trying to legislate more babies or blaming college education for the decline in birth rates.
I'm not sure how important that is but it woud be easy enough to fix by adding "receiving a child allowance" to the criteria and, of course, having a child allowance.
I recently had a conversation while in Germany with two women who are starting families. Both are college graduates and experienced professionals in their careers. Both started maternity leave with 4 weeks full-time pay and then will have 2 years leave at 60% of full-time pay. Those 2 years can be shared with their respective spouses as they choose, e.g., 1 year for the mother and 1 for their partner. When my spouse and I explained the US system, both women and their spouses looked at us in disbelief.
While I don't consider myself a pronatalist, this argument makes sense to me. I think we've gone too far in structuring our basic social institutions around the requirements of Homo economicus. Something I've explored in a recent discussion with a chat-bot (I forget which one): On the need for a society that honors Homo Ludens, https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2025/05/on-need-for-society-that-honors-homo.html
Moreover I was deeply impressed by recent article in the NYTimes that pointed out that, in a study of 22 different nations, people in poorer nations were happier on the whole than those in economically advanced nations. Why? "...they tended to be rich in friendships, marriages and community involvement — especially involvement in religious communities." https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2025/05/where-are-people-happiest-and-how-do-we.html
And now we're charging headlong into a world where AI is going to displace people from jobs, though the pace and magnitude of this is far from certain. In a world constructed according to the values of Homo economicus, these people who have been displaced from their jobs are no longer valuable to society. I don't care what kind of UBI arrangements are made, to the extent that those values remain in place, UBI is simply an indirect way of subsidizing one drug industry or another, for those out-of-work people will turn to drugs to relieve their sense of worthlessness.
After the supreme court upheld school uniforms--Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (2001)--we called for a 100-year fertility-drought. When you want grand-children again, stop punishing people for how they look and start judging people only on the content of their character
You adults aren't sure whether clothing is protected under the first amendment so you allow uniforms, and so we don't need if white babies are necessary for the future, so we're trying to drop the birth-rate everywhere all at once for as long as we can.
if it's OK for everyone to look the same maybe its OK for every baby to look the same too
I think you are a few years early on this, but I expect a full-blown moral panic over birth rates in the US soon enough with attendant "Why aren't we encouraging college graduates to have babies?" arguments. The demographic trends are lined up for it, and you can hear the rumblings. Of course, immigration is the rational answer to this problem, but it will be easier to focus on why colleges are not doing more to make babies happen.
Around the time I left the University of Georgia, they changed the name of the College of Home Economics to the College of Family and Consumer Sciences. I expect it and similar programs to benefit from what's coming.
The perverse incentives of metrics for this one case should be fairly easy to fix once the panic gets underway. Can we fix the underlying econometric model that insists the only way to value a college education is a graduate's income right out of college? I'm afraid that one may not go away. It is just too easy to count and too aligned with how college has been sold.
It's so interesting that the top-down impulse is coming from these big state legislators who are coming at universities without looking at the large picture of what education is "for." I am just a small voice in this wilderness....
I think the whole model is broken. On the one hand, I think it was a big mistake to assume that everyone really ought to go to college out of high school. That's led to a lot of nonsense colleges and college courses which are little more than vocational training. Nothing wrong about vocational training. But let's be upfront about it. And there's nothing wrong with skilled trades, either.
On the other hand, I still believe in the old liberal arts vision of college as a place where you can gain a deeper knowledge of yourself and the world, not for any immediate practical value, but so you can contribute to the long-term health and growth of your society. I think you should spend your time in college on three things: 1) gaining general knowledge, 2) studying something you are passionate about, 3) learning something that will allow you to earn a living.
Mm, not quite. We're going to have a panic over birth rates in general, and immigration won't be a real solution.
Sadly, I agree. Immigration won't be a real solution. It is the rational one, though, compared to trying to legislate more babies or blaming college education for the decline in birth rates.
I'm not sure how important that is but it woud be easy enough to fix by adding "receiving a child allowance" to the criteria and, of course, having a child allowance.
I recently had a conversation while in Germany with two women who are starting families. Both are college graduates and experienced professionals in their careers. Both started maternity leave with 4 weeks full-time pay and then will have 2 years leave at 60% of full-time pay. Those 2 years can be shared with their respective spouses as they choose, e.g., 1 year for the mother and 1 for their partner. When my spouse and I explained the US system, both women and their spouses looked at us in disbelief.
While I don't consider myself a pronatalist, this argument makes sense to me. I think we've gone too far in structuring our basic social institutions around the requirements of Homo economicus. Something I've explored in a recent discussion with a chat-bot (I forget which one): On the need for a society that honors Homo Ludens, https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2025/05/on-need-for-society-that-honors-homo.html
Moreover I was deeply impressed by recent article in the NYTimes that pointed out that, in a study of 22 different nations, people in poorer nations were happier on the whole than those in economically advanced nations. Why? "...they tended to be rich in friendships, marriages and community involvement — especially involvement in religious communities." https://new-savanna.blogspot.com/2025/05/where-are-people-happiest-and-how-do-we.html
And now we're charging headlong into a world where AI is going to displace people from jobs, though the pace and magnitude of this is far from certain. In a world constructed according to the values of Homo economicus, these people who have been displaced from their jobs are no longer valuable to society. I don't care what kind of UBI arrangements are made, to the extent that those values remain in place, UBI is simply an indirect way of subsidizing one drug industry or another, for those out-of-work people will turn to drugs to relieve their sense of worthlessness.
We are not ready.
If you turn the schools into prisons with school-uniforms, then we'll empty out those prisons with below-replacement birth-rates
After the supreme court upheld school uniforms--Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board (2001)--we called for a 100-year fertility-drought. When you want grand-children again, stop punishing people for how they look and start judging people only on the content of their character
Bar-Levy v. Cruze (FL District Court, 2025):
"Because any expressive activity is school-sponsored, West Port’s policy will
withstand constitutional scrutiny [...]"
Even at graduation ceremonies, we're prisoners of the totalitarian state
You adults aren't sure whether clothing is protected under the first amendment so you allow uniforms, and so we don't need if white babies are necessary for the future, so we're trying to drop the birth-rate everywhere all at once for as long as we can.
if it's OK for everyone to look the same maybe its OK for every baby to look the same too