Why don't young people want to start a family?
- Lev Narozhny
- 4 hours ago
- 18 min read
Dear reader, the topic of today's article may seem far fetched or even contrived. However, we are confident that many people around the world have noticed a trend, more and more young people are choosing not to start a family and are opting to live single lives without a partner or children. Why is this happening?
We are not professional sociologists and do not claim to have conducted our own scientific research. However, in preparing this article, we relied on official sources. Therefore, this text can be considered a kind of overview, supported by references to existing research.
This trend can be viewed from different perspectives. On the one hand it can be viewed with compassion, young people faced with global problems, can feel lonely and lost. On the other, it is a conscious choice abandoning the traditional "school, university, work, find a partner, children" life scenario in favor of a more free and individual path.
Writing articles on social issues is not easy. It takes time: you need to study numerous sociological studies, compare them with each other, and find common ground to ensure that different scientists are reaching similar conclusions. This is the only way to get closer to understanding the real picture.
So, when discussing love, starting a family, and the desire to have children, it's important to break these concepts down into their specific components. They can't be considered in isolation: a country's level of development, cultural characteristics, education level, economic situation, human rights, security, access to education, population size, and much more must be considered. As you can see, all of this directly influences people's attitudes toward family. It's not simply a question of "I want it or not," there's a complex system of factors at play.
Financial situation
Since ancient times, marriages have often been concluded for reasons of convenience. The very concept of marrying for love is relatively new to humanity. Previously, and in some countries still today, there was a practice of giving a daughter in marriage in exchange for livestock, valuables (such as gold), or a certain sum of money.
To put it bluntly, the human psyche largely strives for simplicity: we tend to choose the path of least resistance. This means that people are more likely to enter into relationships if they perceive a specific benefit, such as emotional, social, or material. If such a benefit is absent, a person is more likely to continue searching for a suitable partner or remain single.
When planning to start a family, even those who want to have children often postpone this step. The reason is simple: they realize that their current financial situation will not allow them to provide a child with the standard of living they consider worthy. Is this good or bad? On the one hand, it leads to a decrease in the birth rate. On the other, it is an indicator of responsibility. Parents consciously assess their capabilities and strive to raise their children in favorable conditions.
The financial situation within a particular couple often influences decisions about having children even more than the overall economic situation in the country. If people realize that their income and stability are below the national average, they tend to postpone starting a family. Instead, they focus on education, career, and trying to get on their feet, and only then return to the question of relationships and children. However, if the economic situation is unstable at the national level, the effect is not widespread. People are social creatures, and we tend to focus on those around us. If the majority lives in difficult circumstances, this begins to be perceived as the norm, and life expectations are lowered. In such an environment, people plan families and do not postpone them indefinitely.
The financial situation of a country is closely linked to the level of education. An interesting pattern is observed: more developed and wealthy countries often have lower birth rates. This is due to the fact that young people first strive to achieve a certain standard of living, get an education, build a career, and achieve stability. All this takes time, and the idea of having a family is postponed until later in life.
Example: Japan and South Korea present a seemingly paradoxical situation. These countries have relatively stable economies, yet have some of the lowest birth rates in the world. The reasons for this are largely linked to financial and social factors:
1) People work very long hours and have little time for a personal life and finding a partner.
2) Insufficient government support for young families (e.g., limited maternity benefits).
3) High costs of education and childcare.
4) Lack of affordable housing.
5) Limited financial incentives for young families.
Realizing the costs and responsibilities associated with raising a child, many people decide not to have children.
The role of the state is very important. Interestingly, when choosing a partner, financial factors play a lesser role, especially before marriage: two adults can work and share a household. However, when planning children, the situation changes, as long-term responsibilities and significant expenses arise. If the state wants to increase the birth rate, it needs to shoulder some of the financial burden. This could include:
1) Free or affordable healthcare for pregnant women and children.
2) Child benefit support.
3) Accessible kindergartens and schools.
4) More accessible higher education.
5) Housing programs for low-income young families.
Only when these conditions are in place will it be easier for young people to decide to start a family and have children.
Human rights
At first glance, this seems contradictory. In some countries with low human rights protection (for example muslim countries), birth rates remain high. Meanwhile, in Europe and North America, where human rights are significantly better protected, birth rates are declining. Why is this? Part of the answer lies in cultural factors, a topic we will return to later. However, it is important to understand: the presence of rights and freedoms alone does not guarantee a high birth rate, but their absence can become a serious barrier for certain groups of people. Even if a country has good economic conditions for families, no active wars or pandemics, and good internal security, restrictions on rights always reduce the overall birth rate. Here are three examples:
Example 1: LGBT+ couples
In countries where LGBT+ people are discriminated against, their opportunities to start a family are significantly limited. Even if partners want to have a child (for example, through IVF or adoption), they may choose not to. The reasons may vary:
1) Fear of discrimination from society.
2) Concerns about the child's future (e.g., bullying).
3) Legal restrictions.
The fact remains: such families exist. Supporting LGBT+ people, including through access to adoption or reproductive technologies, can not only impact the overall birth rate but also improve the quality of life of children living in orphanages.
Source:
Example 2: Migration
Another important factor is the situation of intercultural couples in which one partner is foreign and the other is local. This issue is directly related to the state's migration policy. Key questions:
1) How easy is it to obtain a visa/residence permit/citizenship for the foreign partner?
2) How complicated is the bureaucratic marriage process?
3) Is there integration support (language courses, assistance with employment, paperwork?)
If the process is too complicated and time consuming, many couples may abandon the idea of living together in the same country. As a result, such families simply don't form, meaning no children are born.
Example 3: Racism
The second example concerned intercultural couples where one partner is foreign. In cases of racism, the issue may not be related to the foreign partner, but, for example, to skin color: when one partner is perceived by society as "privileged," while the other is not.
The main problem with such relationships is that they often face stigma. There's still an unspoken expectation in society that a person should choose a partner of "their" race or at least nationality. If we look at US history, interracial relationships were officially banned there until relatively recently. Laws have changed, but social attitudes don't disappear instantly; they can persist for generations.
Over time, the situation with racism in the world has gradually improved, but the problem remains relevant. In couples where one partner is more dependent on public opinion, this can become a serious barrier. Even if a person holds liberal views, pressure from family, peers, or society at large can influence their decision to pursue a relationship. Furthermore, there is a more subtle psychological aspect. For example, some people, especially women, may experience doubts when receiving romantic attention from a partner of a different race. They fear that the interest in them is not based on their personality, but rather on the perception of them as an "exotic experience."
It is difficult to accurately measure how many potential families are prevented from starting due to racial bias; sociological research provides little such data. However, it is clear that such barriers narrow the circle of people willing or able to enter into relationships, and therefore indirectly affect the birth rate.
Generally speaking, human rights influence fertility not directly, but through the conditions in which people make decisions. The more inclusive, safe, and open a society is, the more people have a realistic opportunity to start a family. Conversely, restrictions, discrimination, and complex bureaucracy narrow the circle of those who can realize this desire.
Sources:
Security
The security factor can be broken down into several key aspects, which have become particularly pronounced in recent years:
1) Pandemics.
2) Wars.
2) The domestic situation in the country.
All of these factors directly impact the feeling of stability and confidence in the future, which is what underlies the decision to start a family and have children.
Pandemics
Statistics show that during pandemics, birth rates decline. Although many people spent more time at home during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, this did not lead to the expected "baby boom." At first glance, it might seem that isolation and working from home should have brought couples closer together. However, in reality, prolonged confinement, lack of personal space, and general stress often lead to strain in relationships. In some cases, this even increased the number of conflicts and divorces.
Furthermore, in conditions of uncertainty, health threats, economic risks, and instability, people are more likely to postpone the decision to have children, preferring to wait out the crisis first.
In countries with rigid political systems, some problems can be smoothed over through propaganda, creating the illusion of stability. However, pandemics, especially during critical stages, are difficult to completely conceal, so they still influence people's behavior and decisions.
Wars
Wars never contribute to increased birth rates. On the contrary, they lead to a decrease in the number of new families and an increase in mortality. The reasons are obvious:
1) High mortality.
2) Instability.
3) Destruction of infrastructure.
4) Separation of partners.
5) Economic crisis.
Under such conditions, people are less likely to consider starting a family or postpone these plans indefinitely.
Historically, authoritarian regimes have attempted to compensate for declining birth rates through propaganda and pressure, encouraging women to have children. In some cases, issues of violence were hushed up or not properly assessed. With limited access to information, this could temporarily influence statistics. However, in the modern world, the situation has changed. Thanks to access to information, improved education, and the ability to compare experiences across countries, people make more informed decisions. In times of war, most people prefer to play it safe and postpone having children.
Internal security
Besides global crises such as pandemics and wars, internal security plays an important role in a country. This refers to everyday feelings of security: crime rates, political stability, trust in government institutions and the law enforcement system.
If a person feels their life is unstable, there's a risk of violence, economic upheaval, or arbitrary action by the authorities, they are less likely to plan long-term decisions, such as starting a family and having children. Conversely, in countries where people feel safe, predictable, and their rights are protected, the desire to build relationships and have children is generally higher.
Propaganda and perception of security
It's important to consider that perceptions of security don't always match reality. In the event of war or internal instability, the state can partially influence public opinion through propaganda, creating a sense of control and stability. This can reduce temporarily anxiety and even support people's willingness to start families despite objective risks.
However, in the case of pandemics, this strategy is significantly less effective. Illness is something people experience directly: they see sick people among their acquaintances, hear real stories, and feel the threat on a personal level. Therefore, pandemics are more difficult to conceal or mitigate through informational influence. As a result, anxiety levels in society rise, and people are more likely to postpone decisions about family and children until a more stable period.
Education and culture
Education and cultural norms are among the key factors determining a society's demographic behavior. Modern research in demography and sociology shows a consistent trend: the higher a country's level of education and economic development, the lower its birth rate, as a rule. This phenomenon is often described within the concept of demographic transition, a process in which societies move from high fertility and mortality rates to low rates as the economy, medicine, and education develop.
Education
One of the key mechanisms by which education influences the impact of time is the factor of time. In developed countries, young people spend significantly more time studying:
1) Kindergarten.
2) School.
3) University.
4) Master's degree and additional qualifications.
As a result, the age of economic independence shifts. This automatically delays other life stages, including starting a family and having children.
According to the OECD, in most developed countries, the average age at first birth is steadily increasing and now exceeds 30 for women. This is directly related to the lengthy period of education and career development. Education influences not only the economy but also worldview. In traditional societies, life scenarios are often predetermined: starting a family is a social norm and expectation. In more educated societies, the situation changes:
1) People gain access to different lifestyles.
2) Individualism increases.
3) The value of personal freedom increases.
Starting a family ceases to be an obligatory step and becomes a conscious choice. This is a fundamental shift: if previously the question was "when to have children," now it's "whether to have children at all."
Gender equality
One of the most powerful factors driving the decline in fertility is the changing status of women in society. With expanded access to education and employment:
1) Women gain financial independence.
2) Opportunities to build a career arise.
3) Competition between professional and family fulfillment increases.
This leads to several effects:
1) Delay in having the first child.
2) Decrease in the overall number of children.
3) Increased number of women consciously choosing a childless life.
World Bank research shows that increasing levels of female education correlate with declining birth rates in virtually all countries. It's important to emphasize: this isn't a "problem," but rather an expansion of opportunities. Women are empowered to choose, and this choice is increasingly being made in favor of self-fulfillment outside the family or delaying motherhood.
Also, returning to the topic of economics, it's important to remember that in developed countries, children are becoming an "expensive project." Unlike traditional societies, where children can be viewed as an economic resource, in modern economies they require significant investments:
1) Education.
2) Healthcare.
3) Housing.
4) Extracurricular activities.
According to the United Nations, the cost of raising a child in developed countries can account for a significant portion of family income. This reinforces caution: people prefer to have fewer children but provide them with a higher standard of living.
Why do some countries have high birth rates?
In several African countries and some conservative societies, birth rates remain high. This is not due to a single cause, but rather the result of a combination of factors:
1) Cultural norms. Family and children are a central value in society.
2) Limited access to education especially for women. Expectation that motherhood is a woman's primary function.
3) Limited access to contraception.
Economic logic
In rural and less developed economies, children can be part of the survival system. It is important to understand that a high birth rate does not mean a high level of well being. It is often combined with low incomes, high infant mortality, and limited opportunities for development.
A special case: Israel
Against this backdrop, the case of Israel, one of the few developed countries with a relatively high birth rate, is particularly interesting. This is explained by a unique combination of factors:
1) The cultural and historical significance of the family.
2) The strong value of having children remains strong in society, linked both to religious traditions and historical experience.
3) Government support.
Israel actively invests in families:
1) A well developed system of benefits.
2) Accessible healthcare.
3) Support for reproductive technologies (including IVF).
4) Social norms.
Even in secular society, having children is perceived as a natural part of life.
5) Diversity within society. There are groups in the country with very high birth rates (for example, religious communities), which influences the overall statistics.
If to provide a general conclusion, the relationship between education, culture, and fertility is complex and multilayered.
1) Education increases choice → birth rates decline.
2) Gender equality changes priorities → family is postponed.
3) Economic development.
Country' population density
The number of people in a country and the population density do not in themselves determine whether people will start families, but they significantly change the conditions under which this decision is made. The more people there are, the greater the competition, and this becomes a key factor influencing behavior.
This is particularly noticeable in education. In countries with large populations or high population density, competition for admission to good universities becomes extremely intense. Young people are forced to spend more time and effort to meet requirements: studying harder, passing difficult exams, and participating in extracurricular activities. This creates constant pressure and a feeling of needing to "keep up" and "prove their worth." In such a situation, personal life takes a back seat. Relationships, and especially starting a family, are perceived as something that can be postponed until a more stable stage in life.
After graduation, this logic does not disappear; it carries over into the labor market. When many people compete for a single job, competition for stable and well-paid work intensifies. Even after receiving an education, people don't feel secure about the future: they need to continue developing, changing jobs, and gaining experience. Financial stability is achieved later than in less competitive societies. And without a sense of stability, most people are unwilling to take on long-term commitments like family and children.
Psychological pressure gradually builds, which is difficult to ignore. In highly competitive societies, life begins to be perceived as a constant race: you need to be better than others, faster, more successful. This creates chronic stress. In such conditions, family and children cease to be perceived as a natural continuation of life and begin to seem like an additional responsibility that can slow personal growth or career.
Added to this is the factor of social comparison. In large, developed societies, people constantly observe the successes of others through their environment, career paths, and social networks. If the majority postpones starting a family for the sake of education and career, this becomes the new norm. People begin to focus not only on their own desires but also on "the accepted norm." A mindset emerges: first, you need to achieve a certain level, stable employment, income, and status, and only then think about family. As a result, the age at which people begin relationships and have children gradually increases.
Interestingly, a paradoxical situation arises with a large population: the higher the density and competition, the lower the birth rate. This is due to the fact that resources, education, work, and housing become more "expensive" in terms of effort and time. People are forced to invest more in their own development, leaving them with fewer resources (time, emotional, and financial) for starting a family.
It's important to understand that this effect doesn't manifest itself uniformly everywhere. In countries where competition for education and work is lower, and social norms remain more traditional, a large population doesn't lead to a decrease in birth rates. There, family is still perceived as a fundamental part of life, not as a decision to be "earned" after reaching a certain level.
Thus, the impact of population size is not manifested directly, but through pressure and competition that shape people's behavior. The higher the competition and demands of society, the later people decide to start a family and the fewer children they tend to have.
Sources:
Dating apps
They have significantly changed the way people perceive relationships, partner selection, and the very idea of a long term relationship. Their impact goes beyond simply making it "easier to meet someone"; they actually change the logic of choice and relationship expectations.
The main change is the feeling of endless choice. On apps like Tinder, Bumble, or Hinge, people are confronted with a huge number of potential partners. This creates the illusion that "there's someone better out there." Even if the current partner is generally suitable, doubts arise: should we continue searching? As a result, people are less willing to invest in a specific relationship because an alternative is always at hand. This directly impacts the perceived value of relationships. When meeting someone requires effort through friends, work, or social circles, people are more likely to value the connection they've already made. In a digital environment, where a new connection can be made in seconds, relationships begin to be perceived as less unique and more replaceable. This isn't necessarily a conscious decision, but rather a behavioral change: people are more likely to give up at the first sign of difficulty and move on to the next option.
At the same time, apps exacerbate the so called choice effect. When there are too many options, it becomes more difficult to make a decision and commit to one person. Fear of missing out appears, as if by choosing one partner you automatically reject many others, perhaps more suitable ones. This can lead to a protracted "getting to know each other" phase without progressing to a serious relationship.
Another important aspect is the change in selection criteria. In apps, people often evaluate each other based on appearance and brief profile information. This simplifies the process, but makes it more superficial. In real life, attraction can be formed through communication, humor, behavior, and shared experiences. In the digital environment, initial decisions are made in seconds, and many potentially compatible people simply don't get a chance. This reinforces the perception that "the right person is hard to find," although in reality, the problem may lie in the selection mechanics.
At the same time, apps create a more flexible relationship model. People are able to clearly articulate their intentions: some are looking for a serious relationship, some a short-term relationship, and others just a chat. This reduces the pressure from society, where it was previously expected that every relationship should lead to marriage. In this sense, apps not only complicate the process but also make it more honest: people are more open about their goals.
However, this freedom has a downside. When long-term relationships cease to be the "default," they require more conscious choice. Whereas previously a person entered into a relationship because "that's how it was done," now they must decide for themselves whether they want it and are ready to invest. For many, this leads to postponing serious relationships or abandoning them in favor of lighter forms of interaction.
It's also important to consider the psychological effect of constant evaluation. On apps, people find themselves in a situation where they are constantly being "chosen" or "rejected." This can impact self-esteem and behavior. Some begin to strive to meet certain standards, while others, conversely, avoid deep connections to avoid the possibility of rejection. In both cases, this can reduce readiness for long-term relationships that require vulnerability and emotional commitment.
That's not to say that apps are definitively "destroying" the idea of family. They're simply changing the path to it. Many couples still find each other through digital platforms and build long-term relationships. But the process itself has become more complex: it requires greater awareness of one's goals, the ability to filter one's choices, and a willingness to settle on one person despite a seemingly endless number of alternatives.
Ultimately, dating apps haven't eliminated the desire to start a family, but they have changed the conditions under which this desire is realized. They've made relationships more accessible, but also more unstable and requiring conscious choice. In a world where there's always "one more option," the decision to stay with one person becomes not a habit or a norm, but a genuine choice.
___ ___ ___
Ultimately, it becomes clear: young people's reluctance to enter into relationships or start a family isn't a whim or a "lost generation," but a logical consequence of the conditions they live in. Today's reality is a constant race. People must obtain an education, often competing for limited free positions, then find a stable job in a highly competitive environment, prove their worth in the marketplace, and only then allow themselves to consider their personal life. In this process, relationships begin to be perceived not as a support system, but as an additional responsibility that can slow progress
Added to this are external factors that increase the feeling of instability. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has shown how fragile the familiar world can be. Wars, political instability, and internal problems in various countries create a constant background of anxiety. In such conditions, long-term decisions and family and children are precisely such decisions are postponed. People don't give up on them forever, but wait for the moment when they feel safe and in control of their lives.
At the same time, the very structure of relationships is changing. Dating apps create the illusion of endless choice: it seems there's always "someone better" out there, and so it's not worth settling for. This creates a habit of not settling, not deepening, but continuing to search. Relationships become less stable because there's always an alternative. But at the same time, people already have what family and social support used to provide. Friends, social networks, and online communities fulfill emotional needs, while apps allow for physical intimacy when needed. As a result, the feeling that relationships are the only way to avoid loneliness disappears. They cease to be a necessity and become an option.
This is precisely the key shift. Previously, people started families because they had to, economically, socially, and culturally. Today, relationships require conscious choice and a willingness to invest. And in a world where everything is unstable, where you constantly have to fight for your place, and where there's always the illusion of a better option, more and more people are postponing this choice. Thus, young people haven't stopped wanting love or intimacy. They simply live in an environment where building long-term relationships has become more difficult, riskier, and requires far more resources, time, energy, and confidence in the future than ever before.
Comments