The Nordic model, often touted as a paragon of progressive social policies, has long been the envy of many nations. Finland, in particular, has been praised for its generous parental support programs, designed to encourage and facilitate family growth. Yet, despite these well-intentioned efforts, the country has witnessed a startling decline in its birthrate, plummeting by nearly a third since 2010.
non member link: https://medium.com/@chrisjeffrieshomelessromantic/the-birthrate-in-finland-has-plummeted-by-nearly-a-33-since-2010-despite-parental-support-7fd60220b109?sk=90d8976af82ed29268286a3d6e79b633
I don't think a decline in birth rate is inherantly bad. It could be because of a sudden decline in living standards (Post Soviet countries) or improvement in living standards (in many developing countries).
Voluntary extinction isn't happening. Too many people like having children for that to work. I think letting birth rate decline is fine.
That said, reducing working hours to 6hrs a day will give people more time to allow for children.
It's not bad but it's not good either. It will mean the future generation(or the next two) will have hard time supporting aging population for those country with social welfare, and supporting free healthcare. Less working young adult = less tax.
I don't care about taxes. Welfare and Healthcare can always be provided for prioritizing the sectors which need it the most. Right now we have many wasteful sectors like advertising and military taking up unnecessary labour and resources.
I always found it to be fascinating how capitalist economies function. Eg. Before 1991 Soviet Union had large industrial towns in the far east. Resources such was oil and ore were mined there. It was working fine until market arrived. Then magically, all those mines which were producing real resources were considered "unprofitable" and all those towns collapsed.
The possible output didn't change, just that under market system it was unprofitable. In money terms it wasn't worth it. Maybe we should stop looking at whether something costs a "lot" in money terms and instead look at whether workers and resources are available.
Another example. Climate crisis. Stopping climate crisis isn't profitable and it would require Governments to mobilize resources by deficit spending. It'll be costly in money terms but the alternative is way more expensive in real terms (people dying, environmental destruction etc)