7 ms·
Australian women are having fewer children, later in life
- williamsiddall 11y agofewer, not less
- cup 11y agoCan you explain the distinction for me?
- efm 11y agoIf you can count distinct items, use fewer. If it's a bulk quantity, use less.
- Jtsummers 11y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fewer_vs._less
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kabdib 11y agoSomething that is continuous (power, water, money) use "less". Something you can count, use "fewer". No similar construct in the other direction. You say "more" of anything. English, feh! :-)
- StavrosK 11y agoI prefer "manier". "Women are bearing manier children". "More children" sounds like it's a matter of degree, like their children now contain 120% more child.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoSeriously, or are you just messing with us here? Because I don't recall having ever seen or heard "manier" used like that or "more" being interpreted only in continuous sense.
- StavrosK 11y agoIt's my invention, now I just have to get manier people to use it!
- bobbles 11y agoIt's really hard to read 'manier' without thinking 'more manly'.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- strictnein 11y agoI can hear my mom yelling that at me every time someone uses it incorrectly.
- dieterrams 11y agoThis is actually a pointless distinction to make, as evidenced by the fact that (1) nobody is actually confused by one's meaning if they use 'less' where they were supposed to use 'fewer', and (2) there is no equivalent for 'more'. Probably one of the best examples of a rule that should be dropped from the English language, imo.
- vacri 11y agoIt's a grammatical rule in the same bucket as "i before e except after c" and "possessive apostrophes on words ending with s don't get another s" "i before e" apparently has more words that violate the rule than follow it, and the possessive apostrophe rule runs opposite to spoken English: "This is James's book". The fewer/less thing is a general rule, not an ironclad one - there's plenty of examples where it sounds natural to use either. I'd also argue that with a demographic the size of Australia (~22M), the number of children in it are not feasibly countable (like grains of sand), and as such, 'less' is fine. :)
- vacri 11y agooh noes! I have fewer karma!
- vacri 11y agoApparently some people disagree with this statement, but it's correct - karma on HN is definitely countable, hence 'fewer'. Of course, it sounds stupid, but apparently the rule is ironclad, to always be followed. Which reminds me, the 'split infinitive' rule is yet another nonsense grammatical rule that is overapplied.
- jjtheblunt 11y agoNo, what was written is that the kids are born smaller. Agreed most people would "error correct" the wording.
- xiaoma 11y agoIf we're going down that route we'd might as well eliminate the letters c and x, use phonetic spelling and reverse the meanings of driveway and parkway. Until the language is remade to conform to logic though, I think it's best to learn countable and uncountable distinctions. At the very least it's an advantage not to have others underestimate you based on grammar issues in your writing.
- joeclark77 11y agoNevermind the critics. I upvoted you.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- thehacker005263 11y ago(not serious) First thing I remembered just after reading the title: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL1-340ODCM
- toomim 11y agoMe too, except I'm serious.
- dboreham 11y agoUgh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGWiTvYZR_w
- WildUtah 11y agohttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u0wj38qTtFU
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- colmvp 11y agoNot a surprise. Trends show that women in the U.S. and Canada are also having fewer children than in generations past and trending towards having children at a later age. Canada http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2014002-eng.ht... U.S. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth-rates-hit-record-low-for-those-under-25-still-on-the-rise-for-those-40/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/03/birth-rates-...
- lkrubner 11y agoThe demographic transition began in the developed nations around 1850: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition My great-grandmother (mom's mom's mom) had 16 children. My mom had 4. My mom's 4 children are done having children, and my mom currently has 3 grandchildren. Life expectancy at birth has increased 6 hours every day since 1850. That trend has been surprisingly steady, despite a few World Wars and depressions. 6 hours every day. That works out to 2.5 years per decade, and over 16 decades, that works out to 40 years. Thus the average lifespan has moved from around the age of 40 to around the age of 80. Occasionally I read an article with a sensational headline such as "A new baby boom!" because fertility has moved from some small number to some slightly larger, but still small, number. Or other times the sensational headline goes the other way: "Baby Bust! Is your retirement fund in peril?" Against all such minor variations in the medium-term trend, it is worth remembering that the the long-term trend has been down. In 16 decades, the only really serious, world-wide break from the trend was 1945 to 1953, and that was clearly a response to the war. The most interesting break from the trend was the so-called English-speaking Baby Boom, which occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Great Britain and the USA. It started in the late 1930s, then stopped due to the war, then started again in 1945, and the birth rate climbed until 1958, and it remained high till the mid 1960s. Outside of that one major deviation, the trend has been down for a very long time. Meanwhile, the Earth's overall population has had its biggest run ever. The last time the human population of the Earth fell is thought to have been the Great Plague of 1347 to 1350, but the boom since 1800 has no precedent. There were 1 billion humans alive in 1800, 2 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1950, 4 billion in the 1970s. There are roughly 7 billion people alive today. Try to keep all that in mind when you read about variations in the birth trend.
- ps4fanboy 11y agohttps://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=b&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=s&met_x=sh_dyn_mort&scale_x=lin&ind_x=false&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&met_c=sp_dyn_le00_in&scale_c=lin&ind_c=false&idim=country:USA:AUS&ifdim=country&tunit=Y&pit=1385733600000&ind=false&icfg https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f... This shows what you are talking about.
- TulliusCicero 11y agoIn a developed economy, having kids is financially stupid. Deeply stupid. It costs individuals a ton, but the benefits accrue to society. Classic tragedy of the commons. If we want people to have more kids, say, up to the replacement rate, then that means subsidies. Cheaper childcare seems to be the main thing that encourages more kids: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-rich-countries-can-be-coaxed-having-more-children-lazy-husbands-and http://www.economist.com/news/international/21659763-people-...
- danieltillett 11y agoNot in Australia if you are unskilled, uneducated and unemployed. Of course if you are educated and working then children costs a fortune.
- aianus 11y agoOr we could just increase skilled immigration to maintain the population. Costs us nothing.
- danieltillett 11y agoOr we could just have fewer people living in the country. The population of Australia has expanded massively in my lifetime (it has about doubled) yet the infrastructure to support this higher population has not been built. Twice as many people trying to live using the same infrastructure does not make for a fun time.
- victorhooi 11y agoA lot of naive observers suggest this, without having thought through the demographical consequences. Go look at Japan to see what happens when you reduce both births and immigration. An aging population, combined with falling fertility rates and no immigration is a disaster waiting to happen. You need fresh blood to keep an economy going - they form the backbone of the workforce (read: taxes) - and in general, they're not scared of trying new things.
- ps4fanboy 11y agoMost of the western world has had falling fertility rates, it would also help explain the push for immigration in those countries, politicians are quietly worried about the stability of their population growth / consumption economies. https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:AUS:USA:CAN:FRA:GBR https://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f... EDIT: why downvote? I am not saying immigration is wrong. I was saying its the only way western countries will maintain their growth rates. If you think immigration is wrong or right is irrelevant to what I am saying.