4 ms·

I would guess that more of this difference is explained by class/social factors than by the passage of time.

by vostok 6y ago

nostrademons 6y ago
Entirely possible, but there's also potential selection bias. I was a teen in the late 90s, and was friends with a lot of the druggie/stoner/party crowd. By and large, these people do not have kids, because they can't afford to. A good many of them are dead now, either from overdoses, or drug-related accidents (like crashing their car while going 100 mph while high), or suicide. The 55 years of American history post-WW2 was a bubble, where people could get away with a number of not-very-adaptive behaviors because the whole country was on top of the world. The last 20 years has rapidly exposed this as a bubble, and the folks who were swimming naked when the tide ran out didn't leave offspring to be part of the next generation.
- cmrdporcupine 6y ago
  The post 9/11 period has markedly less tolerance for rebellious behaviour (anti-sociaL or otherwise) than prior to that. I feel like there are things we did back in the 90s with warehouse and squat parties and underground raves and political occupations and mass blatant MDMA use that could result in far more serious treatment by law enforcement in this era than prior to it.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Kind of reminds me of the kids I grew up around in San Jose back in the 1960's and 70's. A lot of them thought they could party, skate through school and then go work for FMC or some such just like their dads. If I had to guess 75% of them have long ago left California because they couldn't cut it. At least in the Bay Area teens appear to be way more buttoned down and smart than my generation. Don't get me started on the boomer generation. My teachers said my and even more my younger sisters generation were a very welcome relief from those guys.
  - Joof 6y ago
    I've always felt that this is a misconception. My friends did a ton of drugs, had parties and participated in hobbies, especially in college. Now they're all Engineers, PhDs, Doctor's and Entrepreneurs. They just happened to work hard at school too. They don't have kids cause they're busy, so it might be as bad. But no, it's because they're rowdy kids doing 'bad things'.
    - Gibbon1 6y ago
      > They just happened to work hard at school too There you go. > But no, it's because they're rowdy kids doing 'bad things'. Did your friends rape girls at parties and steal cars?
- samatman 6y ago
  That's anecdotally interesting, but the numbers don't bear it out: there's a consistent negative correlation between degree of educational attainment and number of offspring.
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    That negative correlation exists only between social groups, not within social groups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449224/ If you look at only populations who were likely to go to college in the first place - say, white (formerly) middle-class two-parent households, which is what the bulk of my high-school friends were, there's a positive correlation between educational attainment and fertility. Simpson's Paradox strikes again...
woodandsteel 6y ago
No, things have gotten much harder for those who are not born to the very rich. I know, I went decades ago to highly-ranked high school, and it is amazing to me, and sad, how much harder students who want to get ahead have to study. And then there is the other 2/3 of society, who have been going downhill economically for decades.

I would guess that more of this difference is explained by class/social factors than by the passage of time.

by vostok 6y ago

I would guess that more of this difference is explained by class/social factors than by the passage of time.

Entirely possible, but there's also potential selection bias. I was a teen in the late 90s, and was friends with a lot of the druggie/stoner/party crowd. By and large, these people do not have kids, because they can't afford to. A good many of them are dead now, either from overdoses, or drug-related accidents (like crashing their car while going 100 mph while high), or suicide. The 55 years of American history post-WW2 was a bubble, where people could get away with a number of not-very-adaptive behaviors because the whole country was on top of the world. The last 20 years has rapidly exposed this as a bubble, and the folks who were swimming naked when the tide ran out didn't leave offspring to be part of the next generation.

cmrdporcupine 6y ago
The post 9/11 period has markedly less tolerance for rebellious behaviour (anti-sociaL or otherwise) than prior to that. I feel like there are things we did back in the 90s with warehouse and squat parties and underground raves and political occupations and mass blatant MDMA use that could result in far more serious treatment by law enforcement in this era than prior to it.
Gibbon1 6y ago
Kind of reminds me of the kids I grew up around in San Jose back in the 1960's and 70's. A lot of them thought they could party, skate through school and then go work for FMC or some such just like their dads. If I had to guess 75% of them have long ago left California because they couldn't cut it. At least in the Bay Area teens appear to be way more buttoned down and smart than my generation. Don't get me started on the boomer generation. My teachers said my and even more my younger sisters generation were a very welcome relief from those guys.
- Joof 6y ago
  I've always felt that this is a misconception. My friends did a ton of drugs, had parties and participated in hobbies, especially in college. Now they're all Engineers, PhDs, Doctor's and Entrepreneurs. They just happened to work hard at school too. They don't have kids cause they're busy, so it might be as bad. But no, it's because they're rowdy kids doing 'bad things'.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    > They just happened to work hard at school too There you go. > But no, it's because they're rowdy kids doing 'bad things'. Did your friends rape girls at parties and steal cars?
samatman 6y ago
That's anecdotally interesting, but the numbers don't bear it out: there's a consistent negative correlation between degree of educational attainment and number of offspring.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  That negative correlation exists only between social groups, not within social groups: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3449224/ If you look at only populations who were likely to go to college in the first place - say, white (formerly) middle-class two-parent households, which is what the bulk of my high-school friends were, there's a positive correlation between educational attainment and fertility. Simpson's Paradox strikes again...

woodandsteel 6y ago

No, things have gotten much harder for those who are not born to the very rich. I know, I went decades ago to highly-ranked high school, and it is amazing to me, and sad, how much harder students who want to get ahead have to study. And then there is the other 2/3 of society, who have been going downhill economically for decades.