3 ms·
From what I've read the birth rate has long been on a gradual decline as wealth has increased. That there was no sudden drop when women went back to work, just
by eikenberry 8y ago
From what I've read the birth rate has long been on a gradual decline as wealth has increased. That there was no sudden drop when women went back to work, just a continuation of the trend.
- User23 8y agoThat doesn't appear to be true. Birth rates plummeted in the 60s and 70s[1], which is when women started to really join the work force in quantity. Perhaps the people inclined to down vote think I'm advocating for banning women from work? Please realize I'm saying no such thing, I'm simply pointing out an obvious consequence for long term labor supply that simple reasoning can deduce and the data bears out. [1]http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-fertility-at-an-all-time-low-it-depends/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/18/is-u-s-ferti...
- piyh 8y agoLower birthrates could as easily be attributed to lower infant mortality catching up to a new generation https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1.gif https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/figures/m4838a2f1....
- User23 8y agoThe decrease in births is twice the decrease in infant mortality according to the sources we both linked. Also, it takes at least a generation before lowering infant mortality lowers birth rates. It does look like lowered infant mortality contributed quite a bit to the baby boom.