It does seem like by far the lowest hanging fruit right now is to help people who want to have kids, but can't (and it seems like there are a lot of people in that category!). So making IVF available at low/no cost to anyone who needs it seems like a clear win right now.
What's EV for covering one IVF treatment? Seems like p(IVF success) is ~10-20% per cycle, asymptotically approaching 50ish%, at a cost per cycle of like $8-10k? Pencils out pretty good, probably the single best use of funding. Would love to see a real "EA style" analysis of dollars spent per baby produced.
And while we're at it, we should subsidize egg freezing and embryo banking to enable women/couples to have children when they're older if they choose. Any unused eggs can then be donated to other women (or gay/single men) who need them.
FACTS: fertility rates are dropping because Xenu is harvesting body-thetans for his Galaxy Annihilator. You're all not ready for this conversation yet.
I wonder what the effective subsidy of “the village” was back in the day. I have to imagine it was a lot closer to what it actually takes to raise fertility than what parents tend to receive today.
"I don’t fully understand how parents were convinced to devote so many hours and dollars for organized youth sports, but the combination of pressure to do the sports and the ways they impose time costs on parents is by all reports really nasty."
3 thoughts on this:
1. I think an underdiscussed side is how organized youth sports let you pick the kinds of people you're going to be stuck hanging out with in powerful ways.
One of my kids started skating lessons yesterday (as opposed to my hamfisted attempts at teaching him (note: anything you don't remember learning how to do the activity, just go out and pay for coaching if possible, it is too hard to teach without substantial practice)). The kinds of people there are very much more "my" people than the people at swim class (perfectly nice people, just not a lot to shoot the breeze about). I know that when we've done youth archery events it was the same thing.
This is nice added benefit that would be hard to pass up even with more kids and worth some amount of crazymaking to preserve. Keeping this short, but a lot of downstream effects from hanging out with the right (for you) crowd and having your kid do the same.
2. For a while I coached middle school aged athletes at a very "community recreation" tier club. Despite the kids coming to the sport 3-4 years "late" and the parents only shilling out for once a week at a community rec center, they still asked about college sports/NCAA (vs 4-6 nights a week at a legit (expensive) club + travel costs). Doing things for fun and exercise is good and important! I'm not sure if I have a broader point to this other than (some) parents seem to be bonkers.
3. Organized sports are incredible tools for instilling hard work, drive and the ability to compete (win/lose/draw) gracefully. It's usually fairly obvious in the work place who competed at a moderately high level (with the caveat that sufficiently high level of other activities probably works just as well (thinking music/dance/MtG here)) and who didn't.
I'm sure it'll be rough, but I'm also sure that as part of forming my kids into functional civilized adults you'll pry sports from my cold dead hands. Of course, my wife and I started dating in college on a collegiate club team that practiced 4 days a week and traveled tons, so there are massive selection effects here.
My instinctive reply while reading was something like "it can't be worth that level of crazy and money just to shape a peer group", but...then I remembered one of the key hinge decisions in middle school for me, which was choosing to be a band kid, rather than hang out with the tuberculars in home ec/shop. This had very little to do with inherent interest in musicmaking, and everything to do with only smart/conscientious/etc kids self-selecting into band. Keeping up with all the practice at home, concerts, instrument maintenance, etc for the next 7 years, almost entirely to get away from Those Kids...yeah, suddenly the youth sports thing makes a ton more sense as a social filter thing. Appreciate the intuition pump!
You mention the Revolution of Rising Requirements, and the first story is about doing polygenic embryonic selection, which is exactly the thing we just recognized as the problem.
This is not making having children easier! This whole thing is an info-hazard. Do not make people think this is a thing they should or can spend money on, unless they're dealing with some extreme disease.
Indeed, hopefully pronatalist advocates realize the inherent tension between "Fertility is dropping to critically low levels!" and "You MUST use polygenic scoring and IVF to have kids, absolute do not just have sex, are you crazy!?"
Second story trying to coin ideal IVF processes as "the Gattaca stack" also raised my eyebrow. What is it with tech people naming stuff after fictions that have deeply unfortunate implications?
I do think there's probably large Pareto improvements to be made moving marginal healthcare dollars towards preventing disease before people are ever born vs treating it later. At least if the Ethics Committee will allow it...which is a major danger of raising the salience too. Entire cottage industries just itching to employ the E word. "Say social model of disability again, I dare ya, I double dare ya..."
I think these are bad, but I understand why people are opposing them due to understanding that there are large segments of the population that want to ban real meat and see artificial meat as an obvious precursor to said bans
Zvi writing about replacing the entire human process of reproduction with artificial wombs and it being irresponsible to not gene select:
I've been saying this the whole time it's been a topic, and no one has taken me seriously! I'm so glad to see someone else saying it too. People talk about the crazy requirements, and now effectively want to add another (painful, expensive, unpleasant) one!
Edit - FWIW, most (though not all) of the people I see getting really excited about this are single men. In practice, I doubt that many men are successfully talking their wives into medically-unnecessary IVF.
It seems like IVF being "assistive reproductive technology" makes it seem like it will cause people to have kids they otherwise would not have. This is true, in the case of couples who were having issues conceiving and need medical intervention to do so (and for them, maybe throwing in embryo selection with the deal doesn't raise the cost and difficulty too much).
But for couples opting for medically-unnecessary IVF in order to do embryo selection, my impression is that they were near-universally going to have kids anyway. Their choice is not "IVF or childlessness," but "IVF with embryo selection or natural conception." So I really doubt that the availability of IVF with embryo selection would do much to increase birth rates, even if we discount the rising requirements factor.
Separately, I cannot help but feel that people who opt for embryo selection are setting themselves and their children up for more than the usual amount of strife and disappointment down the road when it turns out (as it inevitably will) that the children are different from how their parents envisioned them.
Almost everyone I know waited until they could afford a house to have children. That means that I was nearly the first on my social circles to do so, in my late thirties. Housing theory of everything!
Total sidetrack, but true. Because exercise is not the key, mostly "just" need to keep the fat off. (And where fat goes and stays is to a large extent unfortunately - or not, depending on your lottery ticket -genetic...)
CHH (who may have been quoted in the article) has this thing where a guy says he'd kill 100 people for his family, and she asks "okay, but would you change a diaper?"
There's a lot that men can do to support mothers, and a lot that grandparents can do to support parents, and it's often just a string of tiny little things that fall into the "will you do 10 push-ups a day even if you don't feel like it" category.
But that sounds like work and it's easier to throw money at the problem. Sweden has higher fertility and greater gender equality than countries like South Korea and Japan that also have strong social safety systems. But that's probably just a weird coincidence.
There's a reason that natalcon was estimated at 95% men and almost equally conservative. Because fundamentally that's a group of people who want kids like 6 year olds want puppies and swear they are going to take care of them and mom isn't going to be walking the dog in the rain.
It's not exactly a coalition that's appealing to women considering whether one believes it to be true or not, there's a belief among women, especially younger women, that white conservative men aren't putting in policies that address women's issues. Not just abortion, but birth control, IVF, the trad wife thing, the manosphere, defunding Headstart, no required parental leave, the ugly eugenics that takes up space in the coalition talking about replacing white people, etc. Throwing money doesn't address those issues because equality isn't only a monetary argument. Sure not everyone in the natalist movement wants to regress women to only being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, but it's a large part of the coalition and that presents a hard shadow to shake when trying to convince women they should have (more) kids.
And that's before getting to the question of should we have more people on the planet that Zvi has expressly said he won't engage with in one of the first of these. Throwing money at people who have questions about that are even less likely to be persuaded by money. But that's the primary tool in the economist's toolbox, so everything looks like a monetary problem.
The idea that social gender conservatism will fix fertility is so obviously wrong it's clearly more wish fulfilment than data driven. In Europe there's a negative correlation, and east Asia is an obvious counterexample.
The relationship only holds in America because it happens to also be linked to a bunch of other very particular things, religiosity especially, and you can't fake or impose that.
I've been meaning to mention this for a while - in the US, houses are expected to be huge! Do you know why Brazilian houses are so much cheaper? It's because they are way smaller. As in average between 50 to 70 square meters. Roughly converting to square feet, that would be around 550 to 800 square feet, I think. Houses usually have 2 bedrooms, one for the couple, one for the kids; occasionally, you get 3 bedrooms, one for the girls, another for the boys. Two bathrooms is somewhat of a luxury, though it's become more common. I've been to the houses of my kids' classmates and I recall only two with 4+ bedrooms; most were on the 2-3 bedrooms range
Zvi, I respect your opinion on a lot of things, but you have to recognize that IVF and and the subsequent genetic testing of the embryos generates a lot of people you're effectively just sticking in a freezer?
I wonder if you did the math on the quality of life reduction for those people as compared to the gain for the parents, if you'd still come up with the same very pro answer.
I also think trying to science older married into having children might not be the right answer. There are lots of fertile young adults who just need to be persuaded.
Presumably the intentional community would also constitute housing discrimination? Just like you can't discriminate against families, I don't think you can discriminate in favor of them. Though this could be changed, of course.
If the payments are framed as a loan to later be recollected by lifetime tax payments, I suppose it might be more palatable.
I'm concerned with possible dysgenic effects of paying people to have kids. I would want it to be very likely the kids will be net positive to society - ie. physically and mentally healthy, happier, and functional.
Ideally, there would be a way to pay people who want to have kids ( presumably more likely to be happy ), to have more kids - like payments for 3rd and 4th kids only? Maybe a requirement that both parents have at least 5 years in the workforce? Along with a basic health screening for no significant physical disease burden prior to payment? It gets very tricky.
Payment might also be have to be contingent on a basic embro screening, to prevent severe defects being carried to term for payment, that otherwise would be aborted under normal circumstances.
Regarding the direct subsidy of having a baby: what about inflation? A certain demographics of 20-35 will get money and that will spur rent and housing prices because that's what you need when having baby in the first place.
Other than that it seems like a very reasonable idea - much better than monthly smaller payments that don't seem to work as well (in Czech rep you get 2-3 years maternity leave with approx. 15k USD paid over installments of your choosing but not faster than one year = not enough to make a dent).
Whoever supplies the tax dollars to pay for the subsidy will have less money to spend or invest, so you would expect the inflation impact to be muted. However, there could be disproportionate effects in different industries.
The main problem with housing of course is that it's illegal to build new housing, but perhaps a tax structure like this could incentivize retirees to downsize.
I'd love more playgrounds in airports. They're in big international airports that I've been in and have been lifesavers, so having even something small in many airports would be great. I don't mind boarding last and all that rigmarole if getting to the airport early or having a long connection is negated by kids having somewhere to run around. There was one in maybe Abu Dhabi that was only 5m by 5m, super simple, and saved us.
I don't know what percentage of airports have playgrounds but I think it is pretty high. To name some random examples, LAX, SNA, BGR, BWI, DCA, EWR, LGA, JFK, SFO, SJC all have playgrounds. They do not all have them though (some counterexamples are OAK, BTR, MSY), and more importantly I've found that at larger airports there may be a playground _somewhere_ but that doesn't mean it's near your gate or even in your terminal.
Personally I feel like airports are somewhat-adequately supplied with playgrounds and if there were one place I would like to see more playgrounds it would be at shopping centers, especially smaller neighborhood centers.
The airport codes I recognise in there are all in the US where I haven't travelled with kids. Maybe the US is world leader in this field! Maybe I'm just salty about recent Australian travel and see the lofty heights of Singapore's multiple large playgrounds and butterfly enclosure as a comparison.
To take one example (MEL), there is one play area in the international part of the airport. I think a pro-kid airport would have one in each of the four terminals. Asking parents to walk with their kids 700m through an airport, then to go through security to go to a playground doesn't really count for me. So by "has a playground", I mean "had a playground that's easily accessible to parents as they are travelling". I'm not outraged that it doesn't exist or anything, just saying that if we wanted to make facilities more pro-family, that's what we'd do.
I haven't checked the others. Now I'm wondering if your US examples are similar :p
It does seem like by far the lowest hanging fruit right now is to help people who want to have kids, but can't (and it seems like there are a lot of people in that category!). So making IVF available at low/no cost to anyone who needs it seems like a clear win right now.
What's EV for covering one IVF treatment? Seems like p(IVF success) is ~10-20% per cycle, asymptotically approaching 50ish%, at a cost per cycle of like $8-10k? Pencils out pretty good, probably the single best use of funding. Would love to see a real "EA style" analysis of dollars spent per baby produced.
And while we're at it, we should subsidize egg freezing and embryo banking to enable women/couples to have children when they're older if they choose. Any unused eggs can then be donated to other women (or gay/single men) who need them.
FACTS: fertility rates are dropping because Xenu is harvesting body-thetans for his Galaxy Annihilator. You're all not ready for this conversation yet.
Somewhat relevant self-promotion: there are lots of ways to get more dakka!
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KgFNwBuaDpfGSJktM/a-dozen-ways-to-get-more-dakka
Podcast episode for this post:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dwatvpodcast/p/fertility-roundup-6-the-art-of-more
I wonder what the effective subsidy of “the village” was back in the day. I have to imagine it was a lot closer to what it actually takes to raise fertility than what parents tend to receive today.
"I don’t fully understand how parents were convinced to devote so many hours and dollars for organized youth sports, but the combination of pressure to do the sports and the ways they impose time costs on parents is by all reports really nasty."
3 thoughts on this:
1. I think an underdiscussed side is how organized youth sports let you pick the kinds of people you're going to be stuck hanging out with in powerful ways.
One of my kids started skating lessons yesterday (as opposed to my hamfisted attempts at teaching him (note: anything you don't remember learning how to do the activity, just go out and pay for coaching if possible, it is too hard to teach without substantial practice)). The kinds of people there are very much more "my" people than the people at swim class (perfectly nice people, just not a lot to shoot the breeze about). I know that when we've done youth archery events it was the same thing.
This is nice added benefit that would be hard to pass up even with more kids and worth some amount of crazymaking to preserve. Keeping this short, but a lot of downstream effects from hanging out with the right (for you) crowd and having your kid do the same.
2. For a while I coached middle school aged athletes at a very "community recreation" tier club. Despite the kids coming to the sport 3-4 years "late" and the parents only shilling out for once a week at a community rec center, they still asked about college sports/NCAA (vs 4-6 nights a week at a legit (expensive) club + travel costs). Doing things for fun and exercise is good and important! I'm not sure if I have a broader point to this other than (some) parents seem to be bonkers.
3. Organized sports are incredible tools for instilling hard work, drive and the ability to compete (win/lose/draw) gracefully. It's usually fairly obvious in the work place who competed at a moderately high level (with the caveat that sufficiently high level of other activities probably works just as well (thinking music/dance/MtG here)) and who didn't.
I'm sure it'll be rough, but I'm also sure that as part of forming my kids into functional civilized adults you'll pry sports from my cold dead hands. Of course, my wife and I started dating in college on a collegiate club team that practiced 4 days a week and traveled tons, so there are massive selection effects here.
My instinctive reply while reading was something like "it can't be worth that level of crazy and money just to shape a peer group", but...then I remembered one of the key hinge decisions in middle school for me, which was choosing to be a band kid, rather than hang out with the tuberculars in home ec/shop. This had very little to do with inherent interest in musicmaking, and everything to do with only smart/conscientious/etc kids self-selecting into band. Keeping up with all the practice at home, concerts, instrument maintenance, etc for the next 7 years, almost entirely to get away from Those Kids...yeah, suddenly the youth sports thing makes a ton more sense as a social filter thing. Appreciate the intuition pump!
You mention the Revolution of Rising Requirements, and the first story is about doing polygenic embryonic selection, which is exactly the thing we just recognized as the problem.
This is not making having children easier! This whole thing is an info-hazard. Do not make people think this is a thing they should or can spend money on, unless they're dealing with some extreme disease.
Indeed, hopefully pronatalist advocates realize the inherent tension between "Fertility is dropping to critically low levels!" and "You MUST use polygenic scoring and IVF to have kids, absolute do not just have sex, are you crazy!?"
The synthesis is "fewer, better humans is good."
Second story trying to coin ideal IVF processes as "the Gattaca stack" also raised my eyebrow. What is it with tech people naming stuff after fictions that have deeply unfortunate implications?
I do think there's probably large Pareto improvements to be made moving marginal healthcare dollars towards preventing disease before people are ever born vs treating it later. At least if the Ethics Committee will allow it...which is a major danger of raising the salience too. Entire cottage industries just itching to employ the E word. "Say social model of disability again, I dare ya, I double dare ya..."
Yeah this part gave me whiplash.
Zvi writing about artificial meat bans:
I think these are bad, but I understand why people are opposing them due to understanding that there are large segments of the population that want to ban real meat and see artificial meat as an obvious precursor to said bans
Zvi writing about replacing the entire human process of reproduction with artificial wombs and it being irresponsible to not gene select:
How could people be opposed to this??
I've been saying this the whole time it's been a topic, and no one has taken me seriously! I'm so glad to see someone else saying it too. People talk about the crazy requirements, and now effectively want to add another (painful, expensive, unpleasant) one!
Edit - FWIW, most (though not all) of the people I see getting really excited about this are single men. In practice, I doubt that many men are successfully talking their wives into medically-unnecessary IVF.
More thoughts from in the shower:
It seems like IVF being "assistive reproductive technology" makes it seem like it will cause people to have kids they otherwise would not have. This is true, in the case of couples who were having issues conceiving and need medical intervention to do so (and for them, maybe throwing in embryo selection with the deal doesn't raise the cost and difficulty too much).
But for couples opting for medically-unnecessary IVF in order to do embryo selection, my impression is that they were near-universally going to have kids anyway. Their choice is not "IVF or childlessness," but "IVF with embryo selection or natural conception." So I really doubt that the availability of IVF with embryo selection would do much to increase birth rates, even if we discount the rising requirements factor.
Separately, I cannot help but feel that people who opt for embryo selection are setting themselves and their children up for more than the usual amount of strife and disappointment down the road when it turns out (as it inevitably will) that the children are different from how their parents envisioned them.
Almost everyone I know waited until they could afford a house to have children. That means that I was nearly the first on my social circles to do so, in my late thirties. Housing theory of everything!
You don't need a house! A young couple with a baby works fine in an apartment!
Depends on the apartment, though? I've heard that many cities have a problem where the only available apartments are very cramped.
I've often seen stats showing some young men 'want' more children than young women, but I'm skeptical that's actually true.
If I asked people "Do you want to have six pack abs?" I'm sure the male positive response rate would be very high.
If I asked "Are you willing to commit to doing strenuous exercise every day for a decade?" I expect we'd have many fewer takers.
I suspect young women interpret the more children question like the latter question, and men like the former.
No need for a decade of exercise to get abs. Max would be 12 months.
Ah, but then you need to keep them!
Total sidetrack, but true. Because exercise is not the key, mostly "just" need to keep the fat off. (And where fat goes and stays is to a large extent unfortunately - or not, depending on your lottery ticket -genetic...)
CHH (who may have been quoted in the article) has this thing where a guy says he'd kill 100 people for his family, and she asks "okay, but would you change a diaper?"
There's a lot that men can do to support mothers, and a lot that grandparents can do to support parents, and it's often just a string of tiny little things that fall into the "will you do 10 push-ups a day even if you don't feel like it" category.
But that sounds like work and it's easier to throw money at the problem. Sweden has higher fertility and greater gender equality than countries like South Korea and Japan that also have strong social safety systems. But that's probably just a weird coincidence.
There's a reason that natalcon was estimated at 95% men and almost equally conservative. Because fundamentally that's a group of people who want kids like 6 year olds want puppies and swear they are going to take care of them and mom isn't going to be walking the dog in the rain.
It's not exactly a coalition that's appealing to women considering whether one believes it to be true or not, there's a belief among women, especially younger women, that white conservative men aren't putting in policies that address women's issues. Not just abortion, but birth control, IVF, the trad wife thing, the manosphere, defunding Headstart, no required parental leave, the ugly eugenics that takes up space in the coalition talking about replacing white people, etc. Throwing money doesn't address those issues because equality isn't only a monetary argument. Sure not everyone in the natalist movement wants to regress women to only being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, but it's a large part of the coalition and that presents a hard shadow to shake when trying to convince women they should have (more) kids.
And that's before getting to the question of should we have more people on the planet that Zvi has expressly said he won't engage with in one of the first of these. Throwing money at people who have questions about that are even less likely to be persuaded by money. But that's the primary tool in the economist's toolbox, so everything looks like a monetary problem.
The idea that social gender conservatism will fix fertility is so obviously wrong it's clearly more wish fulfilment than data driven. In Europe there's a negative correlation, and east Asia is an obvious counterexample.
The relationship only holds in America because it happens to also be linked to a bunch of other very particular things, religiosity especially, and you can't fake or impose that.
I've been meaning to mention this for a while - in the US, houses are expected to be huge! Do you know why Brazilian houses are so much cheaper? It's because they are way smaller. As in average between 50 to 70 square meters. Roughly converting to square feet, that would be around 550 to 800 square feet, I think. Houses usually have 2 bedrooms, one for the couple, one for the kids; occasionally, you get 3 bedrooms, one for the girls, another for the boys. Two bathrooms is somewhat of a luxury, though it's become more common. I've been to the houses of my kids' classmates and I recall only two with 4+ bedrooms; most were on the 2-3 bedrooms range
Zvi, I respect your opinion on a lot of things, but you have to recognize that IVF and and the subsequent genetic testing of the embryos generates a lot of people you're effectively just sticking in a freezer?
I wonder if you did the math on the quality of life reduction for those people as compared to the gain for the parents, if you'd still come up with the same very pro answer.
I also think trying to science older married into having children might not be the right answer. There are lots of fertile young adults who just need to be persuaded.
Presumably the intentional community would also constitute housing discrimination? Just like you can't discriminate against families, I don't think you can discriminate in favor of them. Though this could be changed, of course.
I've seen things like this work well on military bases, not sure if/how it could be implemented in the normal housing market.
If the payments are framed as a loan to later be recollected by lifetime tax payments, I suppose it might be more palatable.
I'm concerned with possible dysgenic effects of paying people to have kids. I would want it to be very likely the kids will be net positive to society - ie. physically and mentally healthy, happier, and functional.
Ideally, there would be a way to pay people who want to have kids ( presumably more likely to be happy ), to have more kids - like payments for 3rd and 4th kids only? Maybe a requirement that both parents have at least 5 years in the workforce? Along with a basic health screening for no significant physical disease burden prior to payment? It gets very tricky.
Payment might also be have to be contingent on a basic embro screening, to prevent severe defects being carried to term for payment, that otherwise would be aborted under normal circumstances.
A gated community for families specifically billed as a place to let kids roam free would be fantastic.
Regarding the direct subsidy of having a baby: what about inflation? A certain demographics of 20-35 will get money and that will spur rent and housing prices because that's what you need when having baby in the first place.
Other than that it seems like a very reasonable idea - much better than monthly smaller payments that don't seem to work as well (in Czech rep you get 2-3 years maternity leave with approx. 15k USD paid over installments of your choosing but not faster than one year = not enough to make a dent).
Whoever supplies the tax dollars to pay for the subsidy will have less money to spend or invest, so you would expect the inflation impact to be muted. However, there could be disproportionate effects in different industries.
The main problem with housing of course is that it's illegal to build new housing, but perhaps a tax structure like this could incentivize retirees to downsize.
I'd love more playgrounds in airports. They're in big international airports that I've been in and have been lifesavers, so having even something small in many airports would be great. I don't mind boarding last and all that rigmarole if getting to the airport early or having a long connection is negated by kids having somewhere to run around. There was one in maybe Abu Dhabi that was only 5m by 5m, super simple, and saved us.
I don't know what percentage of airports have playgrounds but I think it is pretty high. To name some random examples, LAX, SNA, BGR, BWI, DCA, EWR, LGA, JFK, SFO, SJC all have playgrounds. They do not all have them though (some counterexamples are OAK, BTR, MSY), and more importantly I've found that at larger airports there may be a playground _somewhere_ but that doesn't mean it's near your gate or even in your terminal.
Personally I feel like airports are somewhat-adequately supplied with playgrounds and if there were one place I would like to see more playgrounds it would be at shopping centers, especially smaller neighborhood centers.
The airport codes I recognise in there are all in the US where I haven't travelled with kids. Maybe the US is world leader in this field! Maybe I'm just salty about recent Australian travel and see the lofty heights of Singapore's multiple large playgrounds and butterfly enclosure as a comparison.
I'm not sure what your complaint is about Australia; BNE, SYD, CNS, MEL, PER all have kids play areas too?
To take one example (MEL), there is one play area in the international part of the airport. I think a pro-kid airport would have one in each of the four terminals. Asking parents to walk with their kids 700m through an airport, then to go through security to go to a playground doesn't really count for me. So by "has a playground", I mean "had a playground that's easily accessible to parents as they are travelling". I'm not outraged that it doesn't exist or anything, just saying that if we wanted to make facilities more pro-family, that's what we'd do.
I haven't checked the others. Now I'm wondering if your US examples are similar :p
Oh, you totally mentioned this in your opening comment!