To Yuyutsu. As a counter point, it seems to me that those who are willing and active to help the next generation are those who are invested in the next generation as parents. Even if it's scope of 2 people having 1 child, that investment into the next generation is also a focus for any other young kid or young adult that the parent sees and relates to because of their own kids.

Those who don't have kids I hear the most often complain about "kids these days" but I hear that line only rarely from a parent.

Therefore in my opinion the best way to help the next generation and poverty level of the younger generations is to have a sizable part of society be engaged with the new generations as they grow up. (Basically to look after the next generation you need a sizable group of the previous generation to be parents.)

If we don't do that we make a new world without them in mind, and they then enter that world without the the help of someone trained by experience on how to get by. let them fall on their face and see who survives is a bad method that we would encourage if it wasn't for active parents teaching their kids as they grow the tools of being an adult in the present day.

Just my thoughts. ...on the other hand though, I think that if people wanted to not have children of their own for population concerns then let's all be pro adoption, and seek to make that a tangible reality.

Bob Hawke was widely criticised 30 years ago for his June 23rd 1987 statement "By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty,". The Hawke government failed to achieve this noble objective. To be fair to Hawke his government did manage to reduce child poverty by around 30% through a number of initiatives. They included;

A supplement for low-income families to help meet the cost of living.
Increasing existing family payments to reflect the cost of children.
Linking family payments to wage growth, to maintain pace with the cost of living and community living standards.
Rent assistance to help families and others on low incomes to cover the cost of rent.

The Hawke/Keating reductions in child poverty were short lived. From 1996 on, starting with the Howard government, child poverty increased in Australia.
"The share of children living below the poverty line (set at 50% of median household income) fell from 14 per cent in 1983 to 8 per cent in 1990, but then rose to 10 per cent in 2006). More recent research published by ACOSS and the Social Policy Research Centre (measured on a different basis, after deducting housing costs) found that child poverty rose from 15 per cent in 2004 to 17 per cent in 2014.

The Salvation Army’s (2017) survey of children in families states:

Survey of 1,495 children across 638 households; of these more than half (54%) experienced severe deprivation.

20% could not afford medical treatment or medicine, and 30% could not afford a yearly dental check-up for their child

Half could not afford up to date school items and 56% did not have the money to participate in school activities.
55% could not afford a hobby or outside activities for their child.

Almost 60% could not afford an internet connection for their child

Nearly 40% could not afford fresh fruit or vegetables every day and nearly one in four could not afford three meals a day for their child.

Parents experienced shame and guilt that their children had to go without, although there was little that they could do to change the situation.

This crap screams Cloward and Piven.
- Welfare Industrial Complex -
But it's interesting.
It's as if we've been social engineered to either now accept socialism, or decide not to have kids at all.
Why has it become so expensive to give a bit of food and clothing just to have kids that become detached from reality anyway?
Isn't it really a twist on so called successful western society when people are choosing to not have so many kids themselves?
Depopulation agenda silently at work..
It makes me wonder about family sizes now. Does a 'do the right thing' responsible male choose to have less kids now (on average) than the irresponsible women who have kids backed by government handout?
Kids raised by the state and owned by the community. Attack on the family.

Dear Aidan,

«Just because you're anti-state doesn't mean you should pretend it's impossible for the state to deploy the resources to eliminate child poverty.»

Suppose the state could (and wanted to) eliminate child poverty at current population numbers, then people would say: "Ah, now I can bring even more children to the world because the government will care for them".

This is driven by genetic animal nature, which is very powerful and cannot be extinguished merely by well-wishing intellectual ideas. Behind all grandiose justifications, is this raw desire of the genes to multiply, affecting both rich and poor - and I condemn the royals, Kate and William, for their poor example.

How many more children/humans could governments support?
But even if it was trillions, what would be left of the quality and purpose of life? Perhaps it was technically possible to squeeze even larger numbers of humans into this planet (including even Mars and some moons of Saturn), what would be the point?

Increased numbers require increased regimentation: ant colonies are very efficient and you may like to live in one - but I don't.

Regardless of what I think of states, this criticism is not specifically about the state - take for example Not_Now.Soon's charitable idea of adoption: it is well-meaning, but the results would be similar.

No children - no child poverty!

«We've already fallen below replacement rate.»

After a century of being far above that rate, replacement is not an option: human population needs to fall back to sensible levels, at least a 9 digit number if not 8, certainly not 10.

Providing more money for children produced by couples who can’t afford to have them is a great incentive for these couples, or single women, to have more. More children raised in homes that dont have the financial, emotional or physical resources to raise the ones they already have.
Any couple or single woman on a permanent low income who continues to have children are already proving they are not responsible parents, so the last thing we want to do is encourage them to have more.
Quality over quantity every time.
What’s the point of increasing the population in that method if the result is even more people on welfare, dependant on an ever shrinking tax payer pool.
Look at the stats on home environment for youth with criminal issues, mental health and drug issues. The majority are from welfare income families or single mothers.
We would be better off providing incentives for working mothers to have more children.

I really hate it when people virtue signal in regards to overpopulation Yuyutsu; don't take this personally it a standard response:
If you believe so whole heartedly that the world is over populated, then why don't you put your money where your mouth is and kill yourself for your cause. Why stop there? Kill your whole family if that's what you truly believe, at least we could say you willing to do what it takes to stand up for that which you believe in.
But the second you start imposing your beliefs on others and pointing the finger saying others shouldn't have kids and that were overpopulated, you become a hypocrite, because to stand up for what you believe in ya gotta kill yourself.