5 ms·

Something they didn't mention is the rise of personal wealth. As people enter the middle class, they start having fewer children. As to why - I'm not a economi

by chiph 6y ago

Something they didn't mention is the rise of personal wealth. As people enter the middle class, they start having fewer children. As to why - I'm not a economist or sociologist, but I expect it's partly because they aren't family farming anymore and don't need the free labor, and partly because they have access to birth control.

chadcmulligan 6y ago
Educated women is the reason usually put forward - once women are educated they find more interesting things to do than have a lot of kids [1] [1] https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-education-and-its-impact-on-fertility.pdf https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-educati... [pdf]
- it 6y ago
  Kids used to be allies of their parents; now they are adversaries. If you are sitting at a computer all day, your kids will probably annoy you unless they are watching cartoons. On a farm or in a hunter-gatherer setting, your kids can learn by watching you and they can help in more useful ways over time.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Do you have kids?
    - it 6y ago
      No, but my roommate has a five year old daughter and my girlfriend has a five year old son. I have plenty of evidence for what I’m saying.
      - searchableguy 6y ago
        I think you are expecting too much from 5 year olds if you think they can go hunting by seeing their parents given their motor skills. On the other hand, depending on what you are doing on the computer. They can learn it by watching you unless you are doing something very complex which most people using their pcs or devices don't. It's not hard for them to learn to comment on HN. And two anecdotes isn't plenty of evidence. I can provide more contrary to yours.
        it 6y ago
        I'm not expecting anything. When my roommate's daughter comes into my room while I'm on the computer, she tries to interact with me a for a little while but loses interest after she finds there is nothing for her to do. When I'm in the garden, I can usually find little things for her to do to help me out, like evening out the soil in a raised bed or putting flower bulbs in a bag. She happily does them and it holds her interest. Part of the difference is that the computer doesn't lend itself to collaboration the way the outdoors does. Part of it is that what I'm doing on the computer is far more obscure than what I'm doing in the garden. If you can provide contrary anecdotes, why don't you? Edit: Maybe a child can't hunt right away, but gathering can certainly be done by a child. For example, this morning my roommate's daughter was up in a tree picking mulberries.
  - chadcmulligan 6y ago
    it depends on your focus doesn't it? Like if you're goal is to spend all day at a computer then yes kids are a distraction. Surprisingly a lot of people like spending time with their family, and regard sitting at a computer as a necessity.
- luckylion 6y ago
  I'd imagine it has more to do with independence than with hobbies. Educated women get jobs that pay well and can do whatever they please, they don't have to rely on a husband and stay at home. IIRC, it's strongly correlated to income (which of course is closely coupled to education), and I'm pretty sure that poor women do not have more children because they're bored or don't know what else to do.
AdrianB1 6y ago
In my country "middle class" means people that pay a lot of taxes and have little left for their own kids. When the government takes more than half of your income to give it to others and when the healthcare is free, but kind of missing, having your own kids is sometimes an economic challenge, especially when the fertility age is when people are also juniors and financially lacking; pushing childbirth to later in life is challenged by reduced female fertility rate over 30 years old.
- boomlinde 6y ago
  > In my country "middle class" means people that pay a lot of taxes and have little left for their own kids. If that's anywhere like where I live, "lower class" means people that don't pay as much taxes but on the other hand end up having even less money left. Yet, lower class people tend to have more children and fertility has a negative correlation to income. Perhaps it's a matter of education and ambition rather than the economic challenge.
  - quantified 6y ago
    Maybe it’s that offspring are a form of survival wealth that become less necessary when you have more material wealth in your house and your community? Pure speculation as I read this.
    - sukilot 6y ago
      What is "survival wealth"? Is that "savings and investments for future"?
      - quantified 6y ago
        Essentially. I just coined that while writing it, glad someone made sense of it. “How do I survive when I’m unable to fully provide or do for myself?” If my children are likely to be successful I don’t need to spread my luck out among 12 of them. As others have pointed out, they are labor-intensive and if you buy into certain socio-economic structures they’re fairly capital-intensive too. I wonder if some if it is also the capital intensity of children, the higher the monetary investment you bring (clothes, gear, schools, activities) the harder it is to have lots unless you have the money.
dghughes 6y ago
I would say education more than wealth but both seem to be factors in fewer children. Maybe both those reasons result in more planning of families and the decision to not have 12 children. My dad's family had nine and he grew up in the city in a small house. I think religion may have some part in it for example Roman Catholic where contraception is frowned upon. It was quite common to have a dozen children. My mother's family who were farmers for awhile (then a restaurant) also has nine children. Government financial support may also play a role. My country Canada has many social support systems that allow larger family sizes. I'm not criticizing it but the support is there for the children. It would be curious to see family size versus government support.
- sukilot 6y ago
  Education is the most portable form of wealth for aspiring middle class people.
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  > Roman Catholic where contraception is frowned upon. It's completely prohibited.
thefz 6y ago
And because it is very well documented that a predictor of the inverse number of babies a woman will have, is her level of education.
imtringued 6y ago
There are lots of factors. One major factor is that women are working now. If you are a full time mom it's possible to take care of 4 children or even more. If you are working you have to pay for childcare and it gets more expensive the more children you have. Those pregnancies also impact your career negatively so there is an upper bound that limits how many children you can have. It wouldn't surprise me if that upper bound is around 2-3 children and other factors drag it down to reach the average birth rate.

by chiph 6y ago

chadcmulligan 6y ago

Educated women is the reason usually put forward - once women are educated they find more interesting things to do than have a lot of kids [1] [1] https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-education-and-its-impact-on-fertility.pdf https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-educati... [pdf]

it 6y ago
Kids used to be allies of their parents; now they are adversaries. If you are sitting at a computer all day, your kids will probably annoy you unless they are watching cartoons. On a farm or in a hunter-gatherer setting, your kids can learn by watching you and they can help in more useful ways over time.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Do you have kids?
  - it 6y ago
    No, but my roommate has a five year old daughter and my girlfriend has a five year old son. I have plenty of evidence for what I’m saying.
    - searchableguy 6y ago
      I think you are expecting too much from 5 year olds if you think they can go hunting by seeing their parents given their motor skills. On the other hand, depending on what you are doing on the computer. They can learn it by watching you unless you are doing something very complex which most people using their pcs or devices don't. It's not hard for them to learn to comment on HN. And two anecdotes isn't plenty of evidence. I can provide more contrary to yours.
      - it 6y ago
        I'm not expecting anything. When my roommate's daughter comes into my room while I'm on the computer, she tries to interact with me a for a little while but loses interest after she finds there is nothing for her to do. When I'm in the garden, I can usually find little things for her to do to help me out, like evening out the soil in a raised bed or putting flower bulbs in a bag. She happily does them and it holds her interest. Part of the difference is that the computer doesn't lend itself to collaboration the way the outdoors does. Part of it is that what I'm doing on the computer is far more obscure than what I'm doing in the garden. If you can provide contrary anecdotes, why don't you? Edit: Maybe a child can't hunt right away, but gathering can certainly be done by a child. For example, this morning my roommate's daughter was up in a tree picking mulberries.
- chadcmulligan 6y ago
  it depends on your focus doesn't it? Like if you're goal is to spend all day at a computer then yes kids are a distraction. Surprisingly a lot of people like spending time with their family, and regard sitting at a computer as a necessity.
luckylion 6y ago
I'd imagine it has more to do with independence than with hobbies. Educated women get jobs that pay well and can do whatever they please, they don't have to rely on a husband and stay at home. IIRC, it's strongly correlated to income (which of course is closely coupled to education), and I'm pretty sure that poor women do not have more children because they're bored or don't know what else to do.

AdrianB1 6y ago

In my country "middle class" means people that pay a lot of taxes and have little left for their own kids. When the government takes more than half of your income to give it to others and when the healthcare is free, but kind of missing, having your own kids is sometimes an economic challenge, especially when the fertility age is when people are also juniors and financially lacking; pushing childbirth to later in life is challenged by reduced female fertility rate over 30 years old.

boomlinde 6y ago
> In my country "middle class" means people that pay a lot of taxes and have little left for their own kids. If that's anywhere like where I live, "lower class" means people that don't pay as much taxes but on the other hand end up having even less money left. Yet, lower class people tend to have more children and fertility has a negative correlation to income. Perhaps it's a matter of education and ambition rather than the economic challenge.
- quantified 6y ago
  Maybe it’s that offspring are a form of survival wealth that become less necessary when you have more material wealth in your house and your community? Pure speculation as I read this.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    What is "survival wealth"? Is that "savings and investments for future"?
    - quantified 6y ago
      Essentially. I just coined that while writing it, glad someone made sense of it. “How do I survive when I’m unable to fully provide or do for myself?” If my children are likely to be successful I don’t need to spread my luck out among 12 of them. As others have pointed out, they are labor-intensive and if you buy into certain socio-economic structures they’re fairly capital-intensive too. I wonder if some if it is also the capital intensity of children, the higher the monetary investment you bring (clothes, gear, schools, activities) the harder it is to have lots unless you have the money.

dghughes 6y ago

I would say education more than wealth but both seem to be factors in fewer children. Maybe both those reasons result in more planning of families and the decision to not have 12 children. My dad's family had nine and he grew up in the city in a small house. I think religion may have some part in it for example Roman Catholic where contraception is frowned upon. It was quite common to have a dozen children. My mother's family who were farmers for awhile (then a restaurant) also has nine children. Government financial support may also play a role. My country Canada has many social support systems that allow larger family sizes. I'm not criticizing it but the support is there for the children. It would be curious to see family size versus government support.

sukilot 6y ago
Education is the most portable form of wealth for aspiring middle class people.
agensaequivocum 6y ago
> Roman Catholic where contraception is frowned upon. It's completely prohibited.

thefz 6y ago

And because it is very well documented that a predictor of the inverse number of babies a woman will have, is her level of education.

imtringued 6y ago

There are lots of factors. One major factor is that women are working now. If you are a full time mom it's possible to take care of 4 children or even more. If you are working you have to pay for childcare and it gets more expensive the more children you have. Those pregnancies also impact your career negatively so there is an upper bound that limits how many children you can have. It wouldn't surprise me if that upper bound is around 2-3 children and other factors drag it down to reach the average birth rate.