Where I am in the US the average cost of first birth without c-section is ~$8k to the patient. With c-section it's ~$20k to the patient. ~30% of all births where I am are c-sections. These prices do not include any other treatment to the mother or child, only the delivery fee. I assume these prices include medicaid/VA patients as well, but I cannot confirm. Likely that means people not under government insurance are paying more than what I stated, but I'd go with those numbers with a gun to my head.

So, the simple act of having children in my part of the US is quite expensive.

At the moment (speaking for myself), cost of living is a negative pressure on having children; in a lot of places you can no longer own a house without a double income.

Most European countries give parents monthly stipends for children and even one-off payments for births, so that's.. a little incentive.

Yes. US wasn't incentivizing having children because the population growth historically always used to be a solid 1%. But it ended around 2008, so policy is likely to change soon.

"The West" taken in general predictably provides incentives when it sees effects of small or negative population growth.

Take for example stats for the year 2000 to see how the past shaped policy of today:

  - US 1.1%
  - France 0.7%
  - UK 0.4%
  - Germany 0.1%
  - Italy 0.0%

Some do.

One common tactic is to have very cheap daycare, which solves a huge issue for many. Quebec is the most notable example: https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/05/quebec-ch...

You'd need to make a compelling reason for incentivizing it if anything.

Western countries are incentivized by corporate interests. Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits. You'd need someone who can rise above corporate interests to do things like health care, children, human rights, etc.

> Corporate interests don't care for children because they get in the way of profits.

Baloney. People having more children is the dream scenario for all business--more children = more consumers = more economic growth.

This has nothing to do with some evil corporate boogeyman.

Just look at the data. There's a direct correlation between rising standards of living and having less children. This is because, if you give humans education and birth control, it turns out most of them don't actually want to have 8 kids.

No, they dream of having customers who buy more stuff.

As employers, having parents take care of children cuts into work and is a distraction.

It won't make much difference, people aren't having children because they don't want them.

source?

Their use of birth control.

Perhaps they are using contraception because there are disincentives, and they are working.

Couples usually need a good prospect for the future to commit to having children. Many don't feel that the future is bright enough.

It'd take a lot of propaganda to turn the ship around. Too many people are focused on short-term returns to collectively sign off on that.

Because we don't want to overpopulate as well.