Elon Musk recently declared in X that “an immediate increase in birth rates is needed.” This is the kind of statement that sounds dramatic, urgent, and somehow civilized, but it’s also far removed from reality. But Musk is not an isolated voice among the far right or the world’s billionaires.
Low birth rates are no mystery. These are not the result of moral decadence, diminished ambition, or excesses of “woke politics,” but rather the predictable consequences of an economic system in which people are underpaid, overworked, and made to feel personally responsible for structural flaws engineered far above their heads.
This disconnect is not limited to fertility. The same billionaires and CEOs who lament population decline also complain that people don’t buy locally, that European industry is losing ground, that “the West” has become economically vulnerable, and some are calling for a ban on Chinese online platforms such as Temu and Shein. But when it comes to solutions, they certainly converge on the same prescription: long working hours, wage restraint, mass layoffs, and deregulation.
In other words, even though the diagnosis may overlap with reality, their treatments systematically make the problem worse.
Let’s start with wages. Real wages have stagnated or declined in many parts of Europe in recent years. Inflation eats away at purchasing power, while wages rise more slowly than the cost of housing, energy, food and childcare. The results are visible in the numbers: the EU’s average fertility rate has fallen to around 1.4 children per woman, well below replacement level. For millions of households, income is no longer the basis for future planning, but an ongoing practice to prevent harm.
But better wages alone won’t help if the cost of living continues to rise. Young people in most European countries cannot afford to buy a home, and basic living costs are rising several times faster than wages.
All of these have a direct impact on fertility. Having children requires not only love and desire, but also time, money, and stability. When rent absorbs half of one’s income, childcare costs rival a second mortgage, and endless “restructuring” undermines job security, choosing not to have children is not a cultural failure but an economically rational decision.
However, this reality is routinely ignored by those at the top. Musk, for example, is famous not only for his concerns about population decline but also for his advocacy of extreme work culture. Employees at companies he controls have been told to work “extreme” hours or quit, a message echoing across corporate America and increasingly in Europe. Work more, rest less, be grateful, and somehow find time to have children and buy local products that are more expensive than those sold in Chinese online retailers.
The contradiction is obvious. You cannot demand longer working days, free weekends, permanent instability and act surprised when people do not have the time, energy and confidence to raise children. Biology may set limits, but economics determines whether people feel safe enough to start a family.
It is also true that declining birth rates in wealthy societies are not simply due to “cultural decline” or a lack of desire for children, but are a long-observed pattern shaped by structural conditions.
This leads to a contradiction. Wealthy societies tend to have fewer children, so it is often assumed that the problem is not economic. But this confuses national wealth with personal security. Even wealthy countries can be tough places to raise a family. It is instability, not prosperity, that is suppressing births.
When income is concentrated, time is scarce, and risks are individualized, having children becomes a gamble rather than a choice. The question, then, is not why people in rich countries have fewer children, but rather why so many rich countries have made family life economically irrational.
The same logic applies to consumption. European business leaders often complain that consumers are moving away from local products and toward cheaper imports from China. While this is framed as a failure of loyalty, taste, and an imminent danger to Western economies, the truth is much simpler.
People buy cheap because their wages are low. When wages are stagnant, price becomes the dominant factor in purchasing decisions and supporting local producers becomes a luxury, available primarily to those insulated from the economic pressures that shape the debate, often the same actors who helped shape the debate.
This is where the hypocrisy becomes apparent. The same corporate entities that suppress wages through outsourcing, automation, and relentless cost-cutting complain that domestic demand is weak. They have hollowed out the middle class and lament its disappearance.
None of this is a coincidence. Extreme inequality is not a side effect of the modern economy, but a political choice, actively defended by those who benefit most from it. The very wealthy, especially billionaires, wield tremendous influence over public policy, labor markets, and regulatory frameworks. Through lobbying, tax avoidance, media ownership, and direct access to decision makers, they shape the economy in ways that concentrate wealth while externalizing risks to workers and families.
The result is a system in which anxiety is normalized for many and optional for a few. When economic power is so seamlessly translated into political power, policies that might restore equilibrium, such as higher wages, shorter working hours, progressive taxation, better public services, and wealth taxes, are dismissed as unrealistic, even though the social consequences of inequality become impossible to ignore.
It is not uncommon for politicians aligned with economic elites to propose corporate tax cuts, often through cuts in social contributions and labor protections, while shifting the burden to the rest of the population under the claim of “creating jobs.” In this sense, today’s fertility crisis is not a demographic puzzle but a governance failure rooted in the unchecked power of those who profit from scarcity while lamenting its effects.
History offers a simple lesson. Henry Ford famously understood that paying workers enough to buy the products they made was not charity, but sound economics. Today’s corporate elites seem to have forgotten that insight, even as they enjoy productivity gains and record profits unimaginable a century ago.
Instead, mass layoffs are presented as efficiency. Thousands of highly skilled workers have been laid off, even as executive compensation and shareholder dividends remain intact. Work is treated as expendable, family is treated as an option, and stability is treated as a privilege rather than a norm.
And when the social influence can no longer be ignored, billionaires suddenly rediscover “society” and issue proclamations about how ordinary people should behave.
Although the situation is complex, the core logic is simple. If people don’t have enough income to live decently, they won’t buy expensive goods, have children, or plan for their long-term future. If they are expected to work permanently, they will not have the time or mental capacity to care for their families and communities.
If billionaires are truly concerned about population decline, the prescription is not cultural panic, reproductive moralization, or flaunting their large families, but higher wages, stronger labor protections, affordable housing, accessible child care, and shorter working hours. Above all, it is fundamental to reduce the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of people.
If we are concerned about the decline of local industry, the answer is not to scold consumers, but to rebuild purchasing power and economic security.
The uncomfortable truth is that many of today’s elites benefit from the very vulnerabilities they decry. In contrast, stability requires redistribution, limits, and shared responsibility. If billionaires are really concerned, they should accept heavier taxes on their assets. Philanthropy and philanthropy, often used as tools for tax avoidance and reputation-washing, are no substitute for democratic responsibility.
When billionaires demand more babies, more loyalty, more work, and more sacrifice, the real question is not why ordinary people can’t have them, but why the most powerful are unwilling to acknowledge their role in creating the conditions they are currently accused of. Addressing this crisis will ultimately require political choices that rebalance power over workers, families, and democratic institutions, rather than further strengthening the authority of those who profit from insecurity.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
