I don't think we want to pay a woman who keeps having children so she can live on welfare, so there needs to be a disincentive for not doing that unless a low population rate means there is a need for more people. Then we might want to pay mothers more to encourage their reproduction. — Athena
Correct. The welfare system especially in Fabian-dominated societies like England has encouraged the emergence of thousands of families living on state support for generations. (I'm not talking about people who might occasionally find themselves out work, but about professional scroungers.)
At the same time, the Fabian insistence on women joining the workforce has reduced the number of women willing to devote their lives to raising children.
Fabian influence has also drastically reduced the number of married couples. Marx in his Communist Manifesto boasted about communism aiming to abolish the family. G B Shaw and other Fabian leaders were outspoken opponents of the family. The Fabian-Labour regime of 1997-2010 deliberately neglected the family and its importance in the development and progress of children so as to not appear "discriminatory or judgmental" toward unmarried and single parents. Under Fabian rule in 2009 married couples in England became a minority for the first time in history.
Interestingly, in the past, the head of the family (the man) used to earn enough to support himself and his family. Nowadays both partners often need to work to earn enough and very few can afford to buy a house.
This has contributed to a stagnation or fall in the general population and to the need for entire industries to import employees from abroad. Hence the Fabian and Labour policy of encouraging mass immigration.
Mass immigration in turn has led to a shortage of housing (= higher house prices and rent) and to stagnant wages that aren't keeping up with the rising living costs.
Fabian control of the education system has not led to higher standards of education, but to the opposite. Universities like the Fabians' LSE often have more foreign students than British.
In 2009, at the height of Fabian-Labour rule, independent opinion polls found that many young people were unemployable, lacking skills from reading and writing to punctuality, presentation and communication.
This again has further increased the need for importing "skilled workers" from other countries, etc. and has created an economy dependent on migrant workers who are gradually replacing the local working class.
The question that arises is, How does the British working class benefit from being replaced with others?
So, Fabianism may look "attractive" on the face of it but it comes with many problems of its own.
This is why people in general have decided that they want some Fabian policies such as national health service but not Fabianism, and this is what the ruling Tories (Conservatives) are now trying to offer, and have been since 2010.
Ultimately, the question is not whether Fabianism has anything attractive to offer but whether, on balance, Fabianism's good points outweigh its bad points. Closer analysis suggests that the opposite is the case.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Communist China just for the sake of public health service and unemployment benefits. And I definitely don't fancy being replaced. But this is just my view.