Plummeting Birthrates Watch Thread - The horrifying implications of living in a Children of Men situation.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
I know WFH (work from home) tends to be unpopular among conservatives, but it would help people secure jobs while preventing them from having to geographically relocate into urban hellholes, thus helping reduce urbanization and hopefully even allowing for the reconstruction of kinship networks (since if no one has to move, deep connections among neighbors and between generations within families could re-develop).
Click to expand...
Boomers and business leaders need to get their head out of their ass when it comes to WFH if they want more kids. So many people in 2020 had covid babies because, well you could have sex on your lunch break if your home is your office.

I understand there are some security concerns with 100% wfh as shown with the NK scam but 2-3 days in the office for hybrid needs to be the new standard if you want birth rates to rise. No one has time for sex when you're coming home after a day at the office and sitting in an hour of traffic. No, its not 'worth the grind' because everything was fine for work productivity in 2020. Besides, with everyone glazing AI there's no excuses.

Commutes erode wages taking up gas, time, food and car maintenance money especially when theres stagflation. Thats money that could be spent on a kids toys, clothes, food, computers, etc. It costs nothing to set up work from home and the benefits. Trumps been a retarded boomer and done nothing to change it while Elon bitches about the birthrates weekly. Im tired and not giving you kids until my living situation improves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/fertility-rate-baby-work-from-home.html | https://archive.is/wsL5e
 
If we had a capitalist system, WFH would already be standard in any job that can be accomplished that way. Unfortunately, major corporations are not motivated to create wealth, so you get "return to the office so a fat womyn of colour can ritually insult you."
 

here is a summary from grok
Summary:The video explores North Korea's under-the-radar demographic crisis: a plummeting fertility rate, aging population, and looming labor shortages in a totalitarian state that desperately needs more people for its military, workforce, and regime stability. Despite being a poor, isolated socialist country with (in theory) free housing, education, and healthcare, North Korea now faces birth rates typical of wealthy developed nations.


Historical Background (Boom to Bust)
  • Post-Korean War baby boom (1950s–1960s): High fertility (peaking 5.1 in 1960), early marriages, and government encouragement led to rapid population growth (2.9% annually at peak). Large families were celebrated as national strength.

  • 1970s shift: Economic slowdown prompted subtle family planning ("two children is best"), free contraceptives, and encouragement of later marriage/smaller families.
  • 1990s Arduous March famine: Catastrophic drop in births and population (hundreds of thousands to ~1 million deaths estimated). Fertility suppressed for years; trauma lingers.

  • 2000s onward: Fertility stabilized at ~1.8 (UN) or possibly as low as ~1.4 (independent estimates). Population growth slowed to ~0.3%, with projections of absolute decline by the early 2030s. Median age rising; already an "aging society" by global standards.

    Why the Low Birth Rate? (The Puzzle)North Korea exhibits "rich-country" demographic problems for "poor-country" reasons:
    • Economic survival pressures (post-famine): Women became key breadwinners in informal markets. Taking time for pregnancy/childcare risks losing income/customers — no real maternity support in the underground economy.
    • Double burden on women: High female workforce participation + near-total responsibility for housework/childcare (no labor-saving appliances, unreliable electricity, patriarchal norms). State "liberation" of women didn't reduce domestic loads.
    • Hidden costs of children: Free services are low-quality or unavailable; parents must buy supplies, medicine, and extra food on the black market. Smaller families allow better investment in fewer kids (quality over quantity).
    • Urbanization, aspirations, and insecurity: Desire for better-resourced children; deep skepticism toward state promises after famine and sanctions.

    This creates a low-fertility trap without the prosperity that usually accompanies it elsewhere.
Regime Response (The Policy)Kim Jong-un has launched an aggressive pronatalist campaign mixing propaganda, incentives, and restrictions:
  • Bans on abortion/sterilization and crackdowns on contraceptives.
  • Propaganda: "Hero mothers," model mother tours, slogans framing large families as patriotic duty, tearful appeals by Kim.
  • Incentives: Priority housing, extra rations, honors for families with 3+ children; door-to-door visits.
  • Cultural push: Highlighting Kim's own family (e.g., appearing with his daughter) to normalize parenthood.
Reality Check The video notes these efforts are likely too little, too late. Structural issues (poverty, gender roles, distrust) persist, and many women skip maternity leave to keep jobs. North Korea's zero-immigration policy worsens the outlook, threatening military manpower and economic viability.

Overall takeaway: Even a dictatorship that controls almost every aspect of life struggles to centrally plan babies. The video blends history, economics, sociology, and dark humor while drawing parallels (and contrasts) with South Korea's more publicized crisis. It ends with reflections on the regime's challenges in reversing the trend. The description and chapters align with this structure (Intro → Boom to Bust → The Puzzle → The Policy → Reality → Reflections).

Good watch worth it .
 
Unredacted TND said:
Finland got it's TFR up a little thanks to Russians and fucking Somalians
Click to expand...
Kind of. Here's a chart of TFR by language of the mother (Finnish, Swedish, Foreign) in 2025:

1777071353174.png

Finnish-speaking women: 1.29
Swedish-speaking women: 1.51
Foreign-language speakers: 1.37
Notably, foreign-language speakers’ fertility has been converging downward toward the domestic-language groups since 1990. In fact, as we can see from the chart, Swedish- and Finnish-speaking TFR went slightly up from 2024 to 2025, while foreign women's TFR continued its very slight decline.

In 2025, total TFR for Finland was 1.30. In all, 18% of children in Finland were born to mothers who spoke a foreign language. The largest groups were Russian (780 births), Arabic (770), Somali (520), and English (470), followed by Albanian, Ukrainian, Farsi/Persian, and Kurdish (330–460 each).

1777071729510.png

Arabs (2.27) and Kurds (2.48 ) now have the highest TFRs of any group in Finland. Somali TFR has dropped to 1.97. All other language groups in Finland (including the Finns themselves) have dropped below replacement except for Kurds and Arabs.
 
once all Ukrainians and Russians are dead, the Jews will move there to rebuild, leaving void elsewhere that will increase standard of living by lowering housing prices and giving everyone more room to expand until in 20 years Iran runs out of oil.
 
On the topic of Scandinavia....

Regional TFR in the Nordics in 2025:
Highest: Nordsjælland (Denmark) 1.81
Lowest: Pohjois-Karjala (Finland) 1.13

Finland
Highest: Keski-Pohjanmaa 1.62
Lowest: Pohjois-Karjala 1.13

Norway
Highest: Rogaland 1.65
Lowest: Oslo 1.33

Sweden
Highest: Hallands län 1.62
Lowest: Västerbottens län 1.28

Denmark
Highest: Nordsjælland 1.81
Lowest: Byen København 1.41

1777072257967.png

The fertile belt you see in Finland despite its low TFR overall are due to the Laestadians (a deeply conservative Luthern revival movement). They have insanely high TFRs:

Laestadians municipalities
Stable: Larsmo (3.55→3.58), Lumijoki (2.71→2.70), Pedersöre (2.42→2.40)
Modest decline: Liminka, Tyrnävä, Perho, Sievi — all down 0.2–0.3 points from their 2019–2022 baseline, but still well above replacement.

1777072405890.png

Unfortunately, despite being extremely fertile, their small numbers mean they don't have a large enough population to drag up the total Finnish TFR. However, if they remain so high while everyone else crashes, eventually they'll be large enough actually make a noticeable impact on total Finnish TFR. They're essentially the Finnish version of Amish.
 
Justa Grata Honoria said:
North Korea Structural issues (poverty, gender roles, distrust) persist,
Click to expand...
This is what the US is headed for.

Zoomer genders may as well live on different planets, the feminist theory revival of the 2010s destroyed any hope you have creating a society where either side trusts each other, especially with political divides. The US will be in for some hefty pain when people realize what they have done, but by that point it will be too late to avert the crisis, only to what degree it is. Only a economic boom, heavy workforce restructuring and better economic conditions to raise a family will reverse this course for Americans. The current conditions of US life are hostile if you want to have kids.

The Trump accounts are a great idea, but you gotta do more, kill social security and let the boomers die, its unsustainable. If you don't have anyone to take care of you, youre shit out of luck.
 
Waffle Iron said:
I think it's too early for right wing selection to filter through.
Click to expand...

Mister Fister said:
Just an idea here, but yeah I’ll give you that the selection didn’t really start until recently.
Click to expand...

The split starts to get pretty prominent by the 90s-2000s, though. Keep in mind that the democrats keep importing brown people to bolster their voter base, so if you only look at white voters, the selection kicked in for sure. If you restrict votes to whites only, Republicans have a landslide victory every time.
Mike_Israeltel said:
Pregnancy being largely an intentional choice now means that people who actually *want* kids are selected for
Click to expand...
Fully agree, we’re going through a bottleneck. It’s better policy (from a right-leaning perspective in the US/similar countries) to try and get the women who are interested in having kids, to have more of them, rather than try to push all demographics and mentalities of women to have 2 kids each. Half the population having 4 kids while the rest has zero still works out to two.

As a counterpoint, women who are married and have kids tend to become more conservative over time, so there’s some incentive to encourage those things among all women.
 
Nationalism and the Welfare state have a negative impact on the fertility-rate.
In the old world before liberalism, the basic social unit was the family. That is where you got your social support from. There were no nation wide social support networks, where everyone was obligated to care for a total stranger just because they spoke the same language.
Because the family was your social safety net, there was a very strong incentive to create as large families as possible. Even if you yourself didn't want children, your parents would pressure you into making some. They would also pressure you into making good life decisions and set you up with jobs, since after all you were there safety net as well.
This is also why marriage used to be so important and divorce and out of wetlock children so frowned upon. All social thinkers of the preliberal era recognized that stable family units were the foundation of a prospering and strong society. Broken families produced beggers and prostitutes. The healthiest and strictest families formed the aristocracy.

It is important to understand that the welfare state and the traditional family are always mutual substitutes. Having a welfare state state kills the traditional family, and thereby lowers the birthrate. This also means the opposite, killing the national welfare state will make people rely on family networks again, which would paradoxically raise the birthrate, as people have an incentive for large families again.


The other negative impact on the birthrate is obviously liberalism and its sexual morality. I don't have much to add to what has already been said in the opening post, except this:
1777105519669.png
The image are fertility rates in Europe around 1900.
France, Germany and Russia all had around 30 million inhabitants each around the year 1800. But because liberalism spread only slowly eastward from France, population growth diverged massively over the following 100 years. By around 1900, the French population stood at just under 40 million(+33%), the German population at 70 million (+133%), and the Russian population at 135 million (+350%).
The entire geopolitical shift in power from France to Germany and finally to Russia can be explained solely by the falling birth rates brought about by liberalism.
 
Nonworking women have far higher fertility than working women, and women in high-status careers have 30% lower completed fertility:

1777138241313.png 1777138251954.png

Though the gap has been narrowing over time, there remains a substantial penalty in childbearing for women who work, not just in elite occupations but at all levels. Only nonworking women had above replacement fertility, while working women had a TFR of just 1.2 in 2020-24.

Most interesting (concerning?) about this is that if you look at the second graph (lifetime completed fertility ages 40-49), even nonworking women have seen a massive decline to barely above replacement levels (about 2.20 in 2020-24), implying that even separate from working outside of the home, there are additional factors causing a crash in female fertility.

This is a trend that has begun to reveal itself around the world for all second-world and first-world countries. For example, Egypt's TFR in 2025 was estimated between 2.22-2.33 and will only continue to fall, despite having a female employment rate of only 18-21% (about 1 in 5 women working). Turkey had a TFR of 1.42 in 2025 despite only a 31-32% female employment rate (about 1 in 3 women working). Mexico had a TFR of 1.38 in 2025 with a female employment rate of 46-51% (1 in 2 women working). For comparison, the US had a TFR of 1.58 in 2025 at a female employment rate of 54-58% (over half).

This seems to point to additional factors (social expectations, costs of living, ability to socialize and pair up, presence of internet and phones, etc.) impairing the TFR of non-third world nations even outside of increasing female employment rates.
 
Audit said:
That's gotta be affected by age demographics. No way are 1 in 2 women between 30 and 40 not working. Maybe students, but after age 24 that should trend toward jobs.
Click to expand...
Right -- it includes older women as well, plus college students and even teenagers (employment rate includes people aged 16 and up).

Even so, it's an interesting phenomenon that even women who don't work are seeing dropping fertility across all nations, to the point where if it drops any further it won't even be at replacement. So far, most efforts to increase fertility have revolved around the idea that working women need more support and flexibility, but if even non-working women don't have enough children, then this would imply that work seemingly isn't the pivotal problem causing low TFR anymore.
 
ur_mom_lmaoooo said:
Mexico was at 2.11 in 2015, 1.69 in 2020, 1.46 in 2024, and 1.38 in 2025. As per usual, the UN numbers severely overestimate TFR and birth rates per nation so that they can pretend there isn't a problem.
Click to expand...
This would mean that Mexican birthrates are significantly higher in the US (at 1.92) than they are in their home country. Pure lunacy.
 
Joy Jay said:
This would mean that Mexican birthrates are significantly higher in the US (at 1.92) than they are in their home country. Pure lunacy.
Click to expand...
This is true of a lot of different groups, actually. For example, US Chinese have a TFR of 1.33 compared to a mainland China TFR of 0.93.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom