People see choosing the number of children they have as a personal “right”, so any direct intervention is going to be unpopular because of that. China’s approach for instance is quite direct (they’re not trying to do quite the same thing with the one-child policy, but there’s similarities).
The trick is to be indirect. Policies that help poor people avoid children they don’t intend to have (e.g. cheaper contraception) and that help rich people have more children (e.g. parental leave) can help indirectly, and are therefore good. The only thing I’d say is that it’s probably a drop in the ocean as far as inequality goes—i.e. the gradient of the change is right but the magnitude is very small compared to the size of the problem.
Also note that making children more expensive to raise is also a way to redistribute children towards richer parents, but it would actually have exactly the opposite of the desired effect on equality in general.
“Also note that making children more expensive to raise is also a way to redistribute children towards richer parents”
… and those with poor long term thinking/working on outdated information.
ETA: As is pointed out below (in my current sorting scheme)
Which is another part of why it would have the opposite effect. Maybe the clue from this is that the optimal plan is to change the perception of the cost of children to being more expensive, while reducing the actual cost.
People see choosing the number of children they have as a personal “right”, so any direct intervention is going to be unpopular because of that. China’s approach for instance is quite direct (they’re not trying to do quite the same thing with the one-child policy, but there’s similarities).
The trick is to be indirect. Policies that help poor people avoid children they don’t intend to have (e.g. cheaper contraception) and that help rich people have more children (e.g. parental leave) can help indirectly, and are therefore good. The only thing I’d say is that it’s probably a drop in the ocean as far as inequality goes—i.e. the gradient of the change is right but the magnitude is very small compared to the size of the problem.
Also note that making children more expensive to raise is also a way to redistribute children towards richer parents, but it would actually have exactly the opposite of the desired effect on equality in general.
“Also note that making children more expensive to raise is also a way to redistribute children towards richer parents” … and those with poor long term thinking/working on outdated information. ETA: As is pointed out below (in my current sorting scheme)
Which is another part of why it would have the opposite effect. Maybe the clue from this is that the optimal plan is to change the perception of the cost of children to being more expensive, while reducing the actual cost.