This post is also available in: English
How much blame for the low fertility of developed nations can be placed on the disappearance of the geographically convenient extended family? In all the debates about below-replacement TFR I’ve read, this angle is criminally under-explored.
Maybe it’s not just high housing costs (read: high diversity costs) that are the culprit of low TFR; maybe a primary driver of reduced family size and childlessness is the expense of out-sourcing extended family care to unrelated third parties (corporations, daycare, nannies, etc).
If grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins significantly contribute to easing the financial and emotional costs of having children, then their geographic dispersal and separation from any family connections would have a big impact on the willingness of young couples to take on child-rearing.
Globalism and its consequences (free movement of labor, job insecurity, fleeing from diversity) provides incentives to spread out geographically and away from the family “home base”. A low TFR decreases the number of extended family members with each generation, until even extended families that remain local don’t have enough members to assist young parents with the quasi-communal child-rearing.
A vicious negative reinforcement feedback loop sets up, until TFR crashes and outposts of high TFR White subgroups like the Amish inherit the future.
The virus in the code of Western society is the abridged family, and as usual the vectors of this virus are mass immigration, forced multiracialism, and rapacious wage-cutting oligarchism.
PS A reader insightfully theorized that the introduction of child car seat laws had a depressive effect on fertility, because car seats take up a lot of room, and middle class couples who want more children are forced to decide between buying a bigger, more expensive car, or not having that third kid.